Colorado Marijuana Law and Federal Form 4473


PDA






bhk
November 7, 2012, 05:19 PM
Now what? If one chooses to legally smoke marijuana in Colorado (by state law), how can you possible answer 'no' on question 'e' when the drug is against federal law. If you answer 'no,' you are committing a felony for lying. If you answer 'yes,' you will be denied. This doesn't effect me at all, but I find the situation interesting.

If you enjoyed reading about "Colorado Marijuana Law and Federal Form 4473" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mljdeckard
November 7, 2012, 05:26 PM
You can't.

smalls
November 7, 2012, 05:42 PM
If it's legal for you to smoke marijuana by state law, it's still illegal for you to own guns by federal law.

NavyLCDR
November 7, 2012, 05:45 PM
Marijuana will be legal in Washington state now too. It does definitely open a can of worms.

If you know your next door neighbor uses marijuana legal at the state level, it is still illegal for you (private party) or an FFL to furnish them with a firearm according to 18 USC 922 (d).

The next door neighbor is prohibited from possessing their firearms according to 18 USC 922 (g).

Even if a person grows their marijuana for their own use, legal according to state law, the US Supreme Court has ruled that the Federal government can still regulate it under the Commerce Clause in Wickard v. Filburn.

Frank Ettin
November 7, 2012, 06:25 PM
A post is gone. The lesson is that encouraging illegal conduct, or even hinting that's it can be okay if you're not caught, is never acceptable here. (A post in response is gone only because it became irrelevant.)

MIL-DOT
November 7, 2012, 06:37 PM
This is a very interesting question.Will the fed look the other way on the marijuana laws, but then come down hard on pot smoking gun purchasers? Will it ignore both laws? Will the fed sue the two states for violating federal law like they do against states that attempt to pass restrictions on illegal immigrants?
(Oh wait, I guess I already know the answer to that last one :cool:.)

pseudonymity
November 7, 2012, 06:37 PM
Why does state law make any difference? The question on the 4473 asks if you are an unlawful user, which in this case would still apply to anybody in the US, since there is a federal law banning possession.

When a state repeals a law that does not nullify the existing federal law. So in Colorado now you can not be charged with a criminal offense for cannabis possession in a state court, but you certainly can be charged in a federal court with a federal offense that happened in Colorado.

The states do not have to line up their criminal offenses with federal law, but if they do not match up, it does not mean that federal laws do not apply in that state.

k_dawg
November 7, 2012, 06:45 PM
It will be exploited to achieve 'gun control by other means'.

Carl N. Brown
November 7, 2012, 07:20 PM
OK, did any state ever try to pass a state law legalizing alcohol during prohibition? It really took repeal of the federal Volstead Act and a constitution amendment overridding the prohibition amendment.

US Constitution Article VI
.... This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall
be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which
shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be
the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall
be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any
State to the contrary notwithstanding. ....

State laws cannot supercede federal law. To legalize marijuana, the federal law would have to be changed. The states are just setting pot smokers who are also gun smokes up for a federal fall.

According to ATF Open Letter to all Federal Firearms License holders (gun dealers), 26 Sep 2011:

"During a firearms transaction, a potential transferee may advise you that he or she is a user of medical marijuana, or present a medical marijuana card as identification or proof of residency. As you know, Federal Law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), prohibits any person who is an "unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802))" from shipping, transporting, receiving or possessing firearms or ammunition. Marijuana is listed in the Controlled Substances Act as a Schedule I controlled substance, and there are no exceptions in Federal law for marijuana purportedly used for medicinal purposes, even if such use is sanctioned by State law. ....any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and is prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition. ... Further, if you are aware that the potential transferee is in possession of a card authorizing the possession and use of marijuana under State law, then you have "reasonable cause to believe" that the person is an unlawful user of a controlled substance. ...."

Signed by Arthur Herbert, Assitant Director, Enforcement Programs and Services.

Possession of firearms or ammunition by a holder of a medical marijuana card, or by a person who is simply a user of marijuana w/o a medical MJ card, is a federal firearms felony, as is any attempt to purchase firearms or ammunition.

mljdeckard
November 7, 2012, 07:58 PM
All they have here is a 2 or 4 year break on federal enforcement. If they get a pres who think's it's worth the time of the .gov, they will flip the switch and the DEA will be back in the panel van and zip-tie business.

4473 is a federal form. The pot legalization is a state law. It is no more negated by it than I am able to go to CO as a soldier, use pot, and use state law as a defense against UCMJ.

Frank Ettin
November 7, 2012, 08:17 PM
All they have here is a 2 or 4 year break on federal enforcement. If they get a pres who think's it's worth the time of the .gov, they will flip the switch and the DEA will be back in the panel van and zip-tie business....And while the feds might decide not to press the marijuana use issue for those who are using marijuana in accordance with a state medical marijuana law, that doesn't mean that they won't pursue a federal weapons charge for a marijuana user, medical marijuana law or not, found in possession of a gun.

Here's the deal:

[1] State law is irrelevant.

[2] Under federal law (the Controlled Substances Act, 21 USC 801, et seq.), marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance which may not, therefore, be lawfully prescribed or used. Therefore, any user of marijuana, even if legal under state law, is, under federal law, an unlawful user of a controlled substance.

[3] Under federal law, a person who is an unlawful user of a controlled substance is prohibited from possessing a gun or ammunition (18 USC 922(g)(3)). Therefore, any one who is a user of marijuana, even if legal under state law, is a prohibit person and commits a federal felony by possessing a gun or ammunition.

[4] An "unlawful user of a controlled substance" is defined in ATF regulations, in pertinent part, as follows (27 CFR 478.11, emphasis added):....Unlawful user of ... any controlled substance. A person who uses a controlled substance and has lost the power of self-control with reference to the use of controlled substance; and any person who is a current user of a controlled substance in a manner other than as prescribed by a licensed physician. Such use is not limited to the use of drugs on a particular day, or within a matter of days or weeks before, but rather that the unlawful use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct. A person may be an unlawful current user of a controlled substance even though the substance is not being used at the precise time the person seeks to acquire a firearm or receives or possesses a firearm. An inference of current use may be drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers the present time, e.g., a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; multiple arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years if the most recent arrest occurred within the past year; or persons found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided that the test was administered within the past year....

[5]As defined, it is not necessary that one be using marijuana at a particular instant to be an unlawful user. As set out in the federal regulation defining "unlawful user":...use is not limited to the use of drugs on a particular day, or within a matter of days or weeks before, but rather that the unlawful use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct...

[6] Furthermore, the regulation provides:...A person may be an unlawful current user of a controlled substance even though the substance is not being used at the precise time the person seeks to acquire a firearm or receives or possesses a firearm....

[7] The regulation further provides that (emphasis added):...An inference of current use may be drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers the present time, e.g., a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year...

[8] Being a prohibited person in possession of a gun or ammunition is punishable by up to five years in federal prison and/or a fine. And since it's a felony, conviction will result in a lifetime loss of gun rights.

9mmforMe
November 7, 2012, 08:35 PM
This is laughable...alcohol is one of the most pernicious drugs available in the world and marijuana is considered a schedule I drug...what a joke.

mljdeckard
November 7, 2012, 08:38 PM
Many laws are laughable. They are still laws.

deadin
November 7, 2012, 08:44 PM
what a joke.

Remember to laugh when doing the "perp walk".

Rail Driver
November 7, 2012, 09:04 PM
So this brings to mind a question - When will they start requiring a drug test along with the background check?

When they start requiring drug tests as a part of the background check to acquire a firearm, will we accept it or finally wake up and do something significant to safeguard our rights? (including the 2nd and 4th Amendment rights that would be infringed by such a requirement)

Frank Ettin
November 7, 2012, 09:11 PM
This is laughable...alcohol is one of the most pernicious drugs available in the world and marijuana is considered a schedule I drug...what a joke. Welcome to real life. If you think that's a bad idea, get politically active and try to change things.

...When they start requiring drug tests as a part of the background check to acquire a firearm, will we accept it or finally wake up and do something significant to safeguard our rights? (including the 2nd and 4th Amendment rights that would be infringed by such a requirement) Pretty idle speculation. We can cross that bridge when someone makes a serious suggestion along those lines.

X-Rap
November 7, 2012, 10:02 PM
We will now become a smoking destination as far as tourism but will run off any serious industry that doesn't want to contend with the additional headache of trying to decipher laws and regulations that aren't even in effect yet.
I thought we had lost our minds with the medical mary jane and the unintended consequences that cam along with it, now I am certain that we are insane to amend our state constitution like this.
Colorado was cool when it was red.

thefish
November 7, 2012, 11:13 PM
I would venture to say form 4473 will be slightly reworded. The interesting thing is that if you read line e to the letter if the law, anyone who uses habitually tobacco would not be allowed to purchase. I guess it's all in how you interpret the definitions.

Also remember that just because amendment 16 passed, does not mean it is the end all be all. The state and local municipalities can still repeal it at any time.

oneounceload
November 7, 2012, 11:18 PM
For all the folks who rail against drinking and shooting, this should be a no brainer - want to get stoned? no guns - make your choice as to what is important to you

Frank Ettin
November 7, 2012, 11:22 PM
...The interesting thing is that if you read line e to the letter if the law, anyone who uses habitually tobacco would not be allowed to purchase...Nope.

The statute (18 USC 922(g)(3)) reads:(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—

(1) ...

(2) ...

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

And 21 USC 802(6) defines "controlled substance" as follows (emphasis added):...(6) The term “controlled substance” means a drug or other substance, or immediate precursor, included in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V of part B of this subchapter. The term does not include distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, or tobacco, as those terms are defined or used in subtitle E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986...

Rail Driver
November 7, 2012, 11:23 PM
For all the folks who rail against drinking and shooting, this should be a no brainer - want to get stoned? no guns - make your choice as to what is important to you
Most people who "rail against drinking and shooting" are saying that it's wrong to shoot or handle firearms when under the influence of alcohol, not that it's wrong to be a gun owner if you drink at all.

If people could live their own lives instead of trying to live everybody else's life, we'd have a lot fewer stupid laws (and lying politicians) to contend with.

MR2Aaron
November 7, 2012, 11:31 PM
This seems pretty obvious, to me.

Possession of marijuana remains illegal at the federal level. The feds don't care if the states make it legal at their level or not; the constitution is explicit in stating they can't override the federal government.

So, if you're a user of marijuana, regardless of whether the state you live in says it's illegal or not, you're an unlawful user of marijuana as far as the federal government is concerned, and a 4473 is a federally mandated form.

In other words, nothing changed as far as gun ownership is concerned.

Onward Allusion
November 7, 2012, 11:33 PM
oneounceload
For all the folks who rail against drinking and shooting, this should be a no brainer - want to get stoned? no guns - make your choice as to what is important to you

Yup. It is a no brainer via fewer and fewer brain cells from use.

It brings about an interesting question, though. It's pretty easy to determine whether someone is carrying or driving under the influence of alcohol through a Breathalyzer. Short of a blood test, how would it be determined whether someone is carrying or even driving under the influence of marijuana if it is legal in the State.

BTW, yeah I'm one of those folks who think alcohol and gun use don't mix.

SSN Vet
November 7, 2012, 11:44 PM
I can tell you this much for sure.... State legalization puts employers in a catch22 wrt. No drug use policies.

I'll give Oregon 3 months until an employer, who fires an employee for popping + on a wiz quiz, to get sued.

Not a state where I would consider opening up my next manufacturing plant if I was a corporate boss.

Rail Driver
November 7, 2012, 11:46 PM
I can tell you this much for sure.... State legalization puts employers in a catch22 wrt. No drug use policies.

I'll give Oregon 3 months until an employer, who fires an employee for popping + on a wiz quiz, to get sued.

Not a state where I would consider opening up my next manufacturing plant if I was a corporate boss.
How do you figure? Can't (successfully) sue an employer for firing an employee that comes to work drunk, why would MJ be any different?

thefish
November 7, 2012, 11:52 PM
@ frank (sorry, can't figure out how to include all the quotes)

Line e. reads Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

or: Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

FDA catagorizes nicotine as a stimulant.

Not trying to start an argument or derail, just curious.

It seems to me it's all in how the wording is intrepeted.

Swing
November 8, 2012, 12:02 AM
Somewhat related to the original question, is this ATF Open Lette (http://www.nssf.org/share/PDF/ATFOpenLetter092111.pdf)r concerning "Medical Marijuana" that exists in some states. I'd imagine it would apply to the new legislation in Washington state and Colorado.

thefish
November 8, 2012, 12:02 AM
This seems pretty obvious, to me.

Possession of marijuana remains illegal at the federal level. The feds don't care if the states make it legal at their level or not; the constitution is explicit in stating they can't override the federal government.

So, if you're a user of marijuana, regardless of whether the state you live in says it's illegal or not, you're an unlawful user of marijuana as far as the federal government is concerned, and a 4473 is a federally mandated form.

In other words, nothing changed as far as gun ownership is concerned.
OOh, figured out the quote button.

Not to get this completely off track, but that exactally is the slippery slope this is on. I've been hearing about this for quite some time (living in CO), and the arguement will soon become, "blood tests are an invasion of my privacy", and "a habitual smoker will have high levels of THC in their system regardless of if they recently used". The whoel problem with this new amendmant, unlike alcohol, is that is considerably more difficult to determine if someone is "under the influence" while driving, or whatever.

It will be intresting to see if the state or local governments realize the problems it will create and actually do something about it, instead of just seeing the $$ of the tax revenue.

thefish
November 8, 2012, 12:06 AM
I think all that open letter was doing was "reminding" dealers that MJ is still ILLEGAL, regardless of your state law.

It is kind of bizzare to think that something can be "legal" at a state level, but Illegal at a federal level.

Curious, is this the first case of this? I can't think of any other situation off the top of my head.

Frank Ettin
November 8, 2012, 01:44 AM
@ frank (sorry, can't figure out how to include all the quotes)...The secret is fully revealed here (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=143230).

[Well, I see you got it, so for anyone else who might be interested.]

...Line e. reads Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
...

It seems to me it's all in how the wording is intrepeted. It will have to be interpreted in accordance with the controlling statute (18 USC 922(g)(3) I cited and quoted in post 20. That is the statute that makes the use of a controlled substance relevant under federal law to the transfer of a gun.

So the term "controlled substance" in the question on the 4473 must be interpreted in accordance with 18 USC 922(g)(3). And 18 USC 922(g)(3) refers to the definitions under the Controlled Substances Act, which I also cited and quoted in post 20. And thus the term "controlled substance" in the question on the 4473 does not include alcohol or tobacco since they are not controlled substances as defined in the Controlled Substances Act.

john wall
November 8, 2012, 02:31 AM
If you are a FFL, have a carry permit, Armed Guard, LEO, and get caught with weed, you are in trouble.

Answer yes on the form? The above mentioned licenses and jobs go away.

It is indeed a can of worms.

If you do guns, stay away from weed until Federal Law is changed.

I sort of see this coming because of tax revenue. If the cigarette industries started selling pot, Federal revenues would be huge.

Personally, I think if you have to get impaired to make it through the day, you have serious issues to fix.

silvermane_1
November 8, 2012, 02:36 AM
yep. MJ is legal in WA state too, feds need to get idea of getting MJ off the controlled substance act, and tax it like hard alcohol and tobacco.

mljdeckard
November 8, 2012, 02:59 AM
Remember as well, that the governors of these states have not yet weighed in on whether or not they think that accepting the possible repercussions from these laws is worth the trouble. Don't get your bongs out yet.

X-Rap
November 8, 2012, 01:21 PM
All I know is Colorado keeps loosing appeal to me, we are in a bad down real estate market but when/if it recovers I am divesting in a hurry.
My problem is that a couple of my other options are just as or more left than here. I'm checking out some options this winter.

BSA1
November 8, 2012, 01:35 PM
I don't intend to take the O.P.s question to far off track but as a retired government bureaucrat it is very important that when filling out government applications/documents you answer the question exactly as they are asked.

For example Form 4473 question e asks;

Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

Prior to answering this question you should consult the definition listed in the Important Notices included at the bottom of the application;

IMPORTANT NOTICES

6. The transferee of a firearm should be familiar with 18 U.S.C. § 922. Generally, § 922 prohibits the shipment, transportation, receipt, or possession in or affecting interstate commerce of a firearm by one who: has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence; has been convicted of a felony, or any other crime, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (this does not include State misdemeanors punishable by imprisonment of two years or less); is a fugitive from justice;

is an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant,
stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance;

has been adjudicated mentally defective or has been committed to a mental institution;has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; has renounced his or her U.S. citizenship; is an alien illegally in the United States or a nonimmigrant alien; or is subject to certain restraining orders. Furthermore, section 922 prohibits the shipment, transportation, or receipt in or affecting interstate commerce of a firearm by one who is under indictment or information for a felony, or any other crime, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

Next I consulted Dictionary.com for the definition of is;

Definitions;

Is verb 1. 3rd person singular present indicative of be. Dictionary.com

Be verb and auxiliary verb, present singular 1st person am. Dictionary.com

Present adjective 1. being, existing, or occurring at this time or now; current: the present ruler.

2. at this time; at hand; immediate: articles for present use.

There is nothing in the question that asks about past or future intention use of illegal drugs. So that only leaves us with the definition of IS for government purposes. Notice there is no time limit in any of the above definitions or a definition by the BATF as to how far in the past the term IS applies to. This is a subjective decision by the applicant and can be answered no by someone depending on when their last usage was. For example if the last time I used pot was two day or two weeks or two years ago, I am not in possesion of illegal and I am not under the influence then I am not a present user of illegal drugs.

Nor is this issue just limited to use of illegal drugs. This question comes up regularly about mental health treatment and past criminal convictions.

I await for my argument to be demolished by the legal counselors.

Frank Ettin
November 8, 2012, 01:48 PM
...I await for my argument to be demolished by the legal counselors.....With regard to being an unlawful user of a controlled substance for the purposes of the Gun Control Act, in posts 11 and 20 I covered the applicable definitions in the statutes and regulations.

If anyone is interested in betting five years of his life in federal prison (and lifetime loss of gun rights) on your non-lawyer opinion being bought by a federal judge, he is welcome to do so.

Busyhands94
November 8, 2012, 01:48 PM
Hmm, interesting thread. I heard about them legalizing it in Colorado and Washington, and the first thing that popped into my mind was how it would effect those that partake and wish to purchase a gun.

Now... I'm not advocating the use of dope for recreation. But I'd rather have everyone on the range high, instead of drunk. If they were drunk they'd be shooting eachother, if they were high worst case scenario is they'd try and eat the bullets.

That being said, you should not drive or handle firearms under the influence of anything. And even though it doesn't effect me I hope that this gets resolved and pot is no longer federally regulated so that adults who decide they want to use it won't be thrown in jail on our dime.
Just my personal thoughts in this matter.

Cosmoline
November 8, 2012, 02:26 PM
Or just go back to black powder ML only until the feds finally give up the fight and start mining pot for tax revenue. But if you go down that road, you can never buy a firearm again until federal law is changed or the ATF amends its rules. Could be a very long wait. And of course the feds can still arrest you and seize all your property including smoke poles (ha ha) for simply having a joint in your pocket. Personally I'm not in that much need of a toke! The wise choice is to not break federal law either by having controlled substances or lying on the form.

X-Rap
November 8, 2012, 02:58 PM
The current problem with legalized pot be it medical or recreational seems to be setting a limit like BAC is used with intoxication and alcohol.
The word I get is that LE is pretty much hog tied on making arrests stick when they suspect someone is under the influence of MM because there is no statutory level.
The new Colorado amendment purports to treat Pot like Alcohol, I don't know if that meaning has been decided but isn't it ironic that one can't smoke a tobacco in a bar or at the ball field but they may very well be able to light up a joint. Logic tells me that if kids are influenced to drink by such exposure they will certainly be with overt pot use.
In some ways I wonder if this is just another back door move at gun control, make every gun owner who smoke weed a felon or disarmed, both by their own choice. The youth are the ones who will fall for it the hardest.

Owen Sparks
November 8, 2012, 03:06 PM
Doesn't residue from smoking pot stay in the blood stream for something like a month?

Should someone be treated as if they are drunk just because they had drinks sometime within the last month?

This is the problem with drug tests. They don't determine sobriety, only the fact that there is residue in your system. This would be like the police charging someone with drunk driving because they find an empty whisky bottle in his trash. There is no way to prove that he was drunk behind the wheel, on the job or at the range.

mljdeckard
November 8, 2012, 03:11 PM
THC is fat soluble. It stays in your body fat for UP TO 30 days. If you have less body fat, it will be less. It is theoretically possible to have an infusion to the bloodstream as you work off fat, but I have never heard of anyone actually getting a buzz from it.

hermannr
November 8, 2012, 03:15 PM
There has already been a case go up through the OR state and Federal courts as concerns a woman and her medical MJ and her CHL, The Medical MJ user won, at every level state and federal.

...The sheriff did not want to issue her a CHL (Oregon license to carry) because she was a medical MJ user....he was over-ruled by the courts.

I think this will finally generate a definative court case as we now have 2 states that say it is absolutely legal, by state law.

Now, all you lawyers out there....why did alcohol prohibition require a US constitutional amendment, but this "drug" verson of the same "prohibition" not need a constitutional amendment??? Can you answer that? Fed power grab that has never been fully chalanged?

Owen Sparks
November 8, 2012, 03:22 PM
I have weekly trash pickup so beer cans stay in my trash for up to a week.
That does not mean I am drunk now. It just means that I had a beer sometime within the last week. Urine testing for THC works the same general way. They can only prove that you have smoked pot in the recent past, not that you were ever high at work, behind the wheel or on the range.

Frank Ettin
November 8, 2012, 03:24 PM
There has already been a case go up through the OR state and Federal courts as concerns a woman and her medical MJ and her CHL, The Medical MJ user won, at every level state and federal....Do not spread misinformation.

She won in state court solely on state law grounds. The U. S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case. The question was never considered under federal law, nor was the question ever considered by a federal court.

...Now, all you lawyers out there....why did alcohol prohibition require a US constitutional amendment, but this "drug" verson of the same "prohibition" not need a constitutional amendment??? Can you answer that? Fed power grab that has never been fully chalanged? Whatever. That red herring is a non-starter. See Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).

But if you want to challenge the Controlled Substances Act or the Gun Control Act, have at it. The courts are open for business.

winterhorse290
November 8, 2012, 04:11 PM
the Commerce Clause has been used to control the states and can mean anything the fed wants it to mean. but the backdoor gun control thing has got me thinking.

Owen Sparks
November 8, 2012, 04:44 PM
It took a constitutional amendmant to give the federal government the power to prohibit alcohol. How are drugs and guns any different?

pseudonymity
November 8, 2012, 07:07 PM
It took a constitutional amendmant to give the federal government the power to prohibit alcohol. How are drugs and guns any different?

Actually they are not all that different, and regulations on them are kind of related. There were federal regulations on some drugs as early as 1906, but since alcohol and tobacco were (and still are) supported by monied interests, there is very little political will to restrict them.

Historically there is actually a lot of racism behind both drug and gun restrictions, some are covered by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in McDonald v. Chicago.

I do wonder if we could have ever had anything like the NFA if it was not for alcohol prohibition - prohibition fueled "gangster" activity, and some high profile murders by gangsters helped push the NFA through.

Zoogster
November 8, 2012, 07:47 PM
I imagine it will not go unnoticed by the drug cartels either. They are spending millions and fighting a war in Mexico to bring drugs through Mexico and to the United States. Marijuana while bulkier, and not as profitable per smuggled quantity, is also the easiest product to offload because it has the largest most widespread market. This makes it the cash cow.

Legalization is going to seriously cut profits. Billions are estimated to be lost already.

I wonder if they will take an active role to stop legalization, and put pressure where they can to reverse it.






BSA1 said: There is nothing in the question that asks about past or future intention use of illegal drugs.


I seem to recall an ATF letter or statement that defined what they considered an 'addict' of marijuana. It was like so many times per year, or X number of times in a few years.
It was some relatively small number too, like used it more than 3x in one year or 5x in a few years.
A definition that would for example make everyone that drinks any alcohol an addict of alcohol (but it didn't cover alcohol, just marijuana.)
Does anyone have that definition or letter?'
That would in fact cover a pretty extensive time period.



I deal with this issue all the time. As someone that likes to do a lot of outdoor activities in California and often like to bring a firearm when feasible. There is many people in California that smoke marijuana. Some just at the end of the day or on occasion.
Typically it is a non issue because in California it is either an infraction (speeding ticket) or legal if they got a prescription that is excessively easy to get.
The feds also don't prosecute for mere possession generally so it really is just the state law that impacts most people.
Yet when it comes to firearms it suddenly turns from an infraction to a major crime.

It becomes a limiting factor when I don't even want to go on a trip with certain people or have them in a vehicle with me because they smoke a little weed at the campfire after a long day and so I know they are going to have marijuana on them.
It is not just low lifes smoking it, although there is plenty of potheads that do it all the time wasting thier lives no differently than alcoholics. There is also many otherwise upstanding citizens in all sorts of professions.
I know in some regions it is associated with certain types of people, but it is culturally a lot more widespread in places like California.
In most circles in California if you get to know the people you are around well enough a percentage are using marijuana on occasion. In more professional circles it just takes longer to come out.

Frank Ettin
November 8, 2012, 09:03 PM
It took a constitutional amendmant to give the federal government the power to prohibit alcohol. How are drugs and guns any different?

Actually they are not all that different, and regulations on them are kind of related...Nope, the regulation of alcohol under the now repealed 18th Amendment was very different from the current regulation of firearms and drugs.

The goal of the prohibitionists was to completely eliminate the manufacture, sale, importation or exportation of alcoholic beverages anywhere and everywhere in the United States. Nothing in the Constitution could support such a broad and plenary exercise of legislative authority by the federal government. So the Constitution had to be amended to allow that.

The 18th Amendment reads:Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

In contrast, the NFA was written as a tax law, and both the Gun Control Act and the Controlled Substances Act (and related laws) were written as regulating interstate commerce. And that's why the regulation of firearms under the NFA has been sustained by courts as being within the federal government's power to tax; the regulation of firearms under the Gun Control Act has been sustained by courts as being within the federal government's power regulate interstate commerce; and the regulation of drugs under the Controlled Substances Act has been sustained as being within the federal government's power regulate interstate commerce.

BSA1
November 8, 2012, 11:00 PM
Thank you for your reply Frank. The information quoted on Post 11 is exactly what I mean when I state there is no definition of what present and how far in the past means by the BATF or more precisely what have the Federal Courts have ruled.

Example;of days or weeks before, but rather that the unlawful use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct.

A person may be an unlawful current user of a controlled substance even though the substance is not being used at the precise time the person seeks to acquire a firearm or receives or possesses a firearm.

An inference of current use may be drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers the present time,

e.g., a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year;

No definition of recent. It is a very vague, subjective term.,

An inference of current use may be drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers the present time,

Interence is the act of passing from one proposition, statement, or judgment considered as true to another whose truth is believed to follow from that of the former. It requires a subjective conclusion.

e.g., a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year;

Ok present use covers within the past year,

multiple arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years if the most recent arrest occurred within the past year;

What is arrest? Does a citation as mention by a LEO count? But wait if it is one year then the five year rule applies???

or persons found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided that the test was administered within the past year....

Back to the one year rule. Is it legal for a company, testing facility or doctor to release U.A. results without consent of the employee/patient unless the Government gets search warrant?

This entire definition is Government doublespeak, well actually, really worse. If the Government considers recent usage to be within the past year then why not write a simple one line sentence saying so? I was wondering if any Federal Court has issued a decision that defined such terms as recent and present?

Frank Ettin
November 8, 2012, 11:09 PM
...The information quoted on Post 11 is exactly what I mean when I state there is no definition of what present and how far in the past means by the BATF....And working those sorts of questions out is what courts do. If you're charged and want to object to the way the definition in the regulations was applied in your case, under your circumstances, there are procedures for you to do so.

...Is it legal for a company, testing facility or doctor to release U.ACertainly it would be with a court order.

But if there's some point to your comments, it escapes me.

BSA1
November 8, 2012, 11:38 PM
My somewhat wandering point is the answer to being a unlawful user of pot is based on the preception of present and recent by the applicant.

Frank Ettin
November 9, 2012, 12:30 AM
My somewhat wandering point is the answer to being a unlawful user of pot is based on the preception of present and recent by the applicant. But one's subjective perception just might not mean too much to a judge.

sherman123
November 9, 2012, 12:56 AM
After reading this thread I had to reply to some of the comments I'm seeing regarding these recent law changes. X-Rap, I must question how Colorado has "lost their minds" regarding the medicinal use of cannabis which has countless uses ranging from treating multiple sclerosis and HIV to killing cancer cells through autophagy(all without damaging healthy cells and tissue). Yes it is illegal as others have said but state laws are changing and there is a great chance federal law will in regards to this as well. So to echo what folks here have said, yes it is illegal under federal law still so until that changes firearms ownership in conjunction with cannabis use will still be illegal for that reason.

thefish
November 9, 2012, 02:34 AM
The current problem with legalized pot be it medical or recreational seems to be setting a limit like BAC is used with intoxication and alcohol.
The word I get is that LE is pretty much hog tied on making arrests stick when they suspect someone is under the influence of MM because there is no statutory level.
The new Colorado amendment purports to treat Pot like Alcohol, I don't know if that meaning has been decided but isn't it ironic that one can't smoke a tobacco in a bar or at the ball field but they may very well be able to light up a joint. Logic tells me that if kids are influenced to drink by such exposure they will certainly be with overt pot use.
In some ways I wonder if this is just another back door move at gun control, make every gun owner who smoke weed a felon or disarmed, both by their own choice. The youth are the ones who will fall for it the hardest.
Smoking in public will be against the law. As well as private sales. If it is enforced, we will see. Personally I could care less if someone sits at home and burnes one. But when they burn one and go to the range, or get in their car while my wife and 2 kids are driving the roads, is what rubs me the wrong way.

Backdoor gun control? Highly unlikely. Attractiveness of over 200 million in tax revenue. Very likely.

mljdeckard
November 9, 2012, 03:14 AM
But....those who are irresponsible enough to use it in the ways you don't want them to are going to do it whether it's legal or not. Just like they will with alcohol.

BSA1
November 9, 2012, 09:10 AM
But one's subjective perception just might not mean too much to a judge.

Yep...my point exactly. The BATF could write a simple phrase like;

"If you have used a illegal drug, or been arrested and convicted of possession, transportation, or distributing a illegal drug as defined by >>> regardless of the severity level, i.e. citation, infraction, misdemeanor or felony, in the past 12 months then you are not allowed to purchase a firearm."

Simple clear concise.

As you point out the current regulations are subject to the whims of the Government and Judges.

I got to admit though it is a job security for lawyers. :D

Sav .250
November 9, 2012, 09:18 AM
"Smoke if you got-um" Remember that guys! Wonder what Colo is going to do about drug tests.

dtow2
November 9, 2012, 11:26 PM
I bet the stores selling weed will have to see your photo id. What if they scan it and now your in the system and if it makes it to the fed level "or state level in some states" you would be denyed the purchase of firearms
Yep all kinds of worms will be opened on this

allaroundhunter
November 9, 2012, 11:42 PM
I would venture to say form 4473 will be slightly reworded.

I would guess not. As has been said Federal Gvt > State Gvt. The federal government will not relinquish that (especially a democrat-run government).

celery
November 10, 2012, 12:10 AM
How can the cultivation and use of a plant by an individual be the business of a government anyway????

Oh yea, I forgot. They said it is their business so it is their business.

Frank Ettin
November 10, 2012, 12:55 AM
How can the cultivation and use of a plant by an individual be the business of a government anyway????

Oh yea, I forgot. They said it is their business so it is their business. You could try that pitch with a judge, but it sure won't get you anywhere. And the Supreme Court has confirmed on a number of occasions that the government can indeed make it its business.

Rail Driver
November 10, 2012, 01:08 AM
And the Supreme Court has confirmed on a number of occasions that the government can indeed make it its business.

That doesn't make it right. That is just proof that the government's primary concern is retaining power and control over the population for itself.

I don't know about you, but I don't need some suit in Washington D.C. to tell me right from wrong - My parents taught me that quite well, thank you.

Frank Ettin
November 10, 2012, 01:55 AM
...That is just proof that the government's primary concern is retaining power and control over the population for itself.... Nope, that's only your interpretation of it. On the other hand, the Founding Fathers in the Constitution delegated the judicial power of the United States to the federal courts, and gave the federal courts jurisdiction to, among other things, decide cases arising under he Constitution (Constitution of the United States, Article III, Sections 1 and 2):Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....

Section 2. The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,...

...I don't know about you, but I don't need some suit in Washington D.C. to tell me right from wrong...It's not about your view of what is right or wrong. It's about the what is Constitutional and what is or is not legal.

lobo9er
November 10, 2012, 02:16 AM
It's not about your view of what is right or wrong. It's about the what is Constitutional and what is or is not legal.

interesting when dealing with something that maybe constitutional yet illegal all at once. The government has made such a mess of the laws it is only gong to make things costly and time consuming to figure out. Making things illegal like growing a plant sounds pretty unconstitutional. Just my opinion, and only opinion that matters as frank has pointed out is the judges. They make the rules.

Law is power of language. Its been done through out history time and time again.

Rail Driver
November 10, 2012, 03:10 AM
Nope, that's only your interpretation of it. On the other hand, the Founding Fathers in the Constitution delegated the judicial power of the United States to the federal courts, and gave the federal courts jurisdiction to, among other things, decide cases arising under he Constitution (Constitution of the United States, Article III, Sections 1 and 2):

It's not about your view of what is right or wrong. It's about the what is Constitutional and what is or is not legal.

You're right - it's not about my view of what's right or wrong.

I am trying to respond in a "High Road" fashion to this, so please bear with me, and if I step over the line feel free to moderate as necessary.

It seems to me that you are defending the right of the government to make up the rules as they go along whether those rules violate the intent that the Founding Fathers had or not (which, let's face it - none of us can know with 100% certainty, the intent of the founding fathers).

It is apparent to me that you have a strong bias against marijuana and its use - That's fine, and you're entitled to that opinion - but your bias has nothing to do with the constitutionality of laws regulating it - It's well known that Supreme Court Justices (the end of the line where law in this nation is concerned) are NOT objective, or else who appoints those justices wouldn't be as much of an issue where firearms rights are concerned.

The question here seems to be whether or not it's constitutional for the government to regulate ... well... everything, based on the commerce clause.

You seem to be defending the right of the government to regulate every aspect of our lives using that clause simply because it's in the constitution and if I'm mistaken please correct me.

The way I see it, you can't have it both ways - If the government can regulate everything else based on the commerce clause, then why can't they regulate firearms? If they cannot regulate everything on that basis, then why can they regulate marijuana? For that matter, what gives the government the right to regulate firearms or marijuana at all?

There's nothing in the constitution about marijuana - several of the Founding Fathers grew hemp on their own lands (granted they likely didn't smoke it). There is, however, an entire constitutional amendment relating to firearms, which we are all familiar with, which prohibits the government from making any law which infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, yet here we are today with literally thousands of state and federal laws infringing on our firearms rights, and a product that was once one of our nation's largest cash crops rendered completely illegal.

But the government NEVER does ANYTHING that is unconstitutional, and the government is completely transparent in everything it does. :rolleyes:

The real kicker here is that in order for something to be declared unconstitutional, someone has to file suit with the government, convince the supreme court to hear the case, extremely large sums of money must change hands, and then those same judges that are appointed by the people that make the laws get to decide whether or not a law is constitutional or not.

Seems to me that things aren't quite as cut and dried as they should be, if the constitution is really the end of the line and the law of the land.

Frank Ettin
November 10, 2012, 03:45 AM
..It seems to me that you are defending the right of the government to make up the rules as they go along whether those rules violate the intent that the Founding Fathers had or not (which, let's face it - none of us can know with 100% certainty, the intent of the founding fathers)... No, but in the real world the Founding Fathers delegated the authority under the Constitution to the federal courts to exercise the judicial power of the United States to resolve, among other things, disputes over the meaning and application of the Constitution.

...It is apparent to me that you have a strong bias against marijuana and its use...I have no idea how you reached that conclusion. I've said nothing about my personal views regarding marijuana or its use. I've been very clear, however, about what the current law is.

...The question here seems to be whether or not it's constitutional for the government to regulate ... well... everything, based on the commerce clause....And disputes on such questions are, under the Constitution, matters for the federal courts.

..The way I see it, you can't have it both ways - If the government can regulate everything else based on the commerce clause, then why can't they regulate firearms? If they cannot regulate everything on that basis, then why can they regulate marijuana? For that matter, what gives the government the right to regulate firearms or marijuana at all?... Again, more issues for the federal courts.

...But the government NEVER does ANYTHING that is unconstitutional, and the government is completely transparent in everything it does...But the courts do sometimes rule against the government.

...The real kicker here is that in order for something to be declared unconstitutional, someone has to file suit with the government, convince the supreme court to hear the case, extremely large sums of money must change hands,...Welcome to real life.

...then those same judges that are appointed by the people that make the laws get to decide whether or not a law is constitutional or not... Which is apparently the way the Founding Fathers wanted it, because that's the way they set things up in the Constitution.

...Seems to me that things aren't quite as cut and dried as they should be, if the constitution is really the end of the line and the law of the land. What makes you think things should be all the cut and dried? We live in a complex, pluralistic, political world with many people having differing beliefs, values, interests, needs, etc. That is not a recipe for "cut and dried."

sherman123
November 10, 2012, 03:52 AM
I wholeheartedly agree that cannabis prohibition does not meet the definition of constitutional. Yes, it is illegal and we are discussing legal issues but if we are to discuss constitutional issues as well then it's safe to say the founding fathers would not approve of cannabis prohibition.
“Make the most of the Indian hemp seed, sow it everywhere.”
-George Washington

Frank Ettin
November 10, 2012, 04:05 AM
...but if we are to discuss constitutional issues as well then it's safe to say the founding fathers would not approve of cannabis prohibition.... Well they aren't here now, and the Supreme Court has found it to be constitutional (e. g., Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005)). The opinion of the Supreme Court, to which the Founding Fathers delegated the judicial power of the United States, including jurisdiction of cases arising under the Constitution, trumps your opinion.

DMF
November 10, 2012, 08:42 AM
Thank you for your reply Frank. The information quoted on Post 11 is exactly what I mean when I state there is no definition of what present and how far in the past means by the BATF or more precisely what have the Federal Courts have ruled.

Example;of days or weeks before, but rather that the unlawful use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct.

A person may be an unlawful current user of a controlled substance even though the substance is not being used at the precise time the person seeks to acquire a firearm or receives or possesses a firearm.

An inference of current use may be drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers the present time,

e.g., a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year;

No definition of recent. It is a very vague, subjective term.,

An inference of current use may be drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers the present time,

Interence is the act of passing from one proposition, statement, or judgment considered as true to another whose truth is believed to follow from that of the former. It requires a subjective conclusion.

e.g., a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year;

Ok present use covers within the past year,

multiple arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years if the most recent arrest occurred within the past year;

What is arrest? Does a citation as mention by a LEO count? But wait if it is one year then the five year rule applies???

or persons found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided that the test was administered within the past year....

Back to the one year rule. Is it legal for a company, testing facility or doctor to release U.A. results without consent of the employee/patient unless the Government gets search warrant?

This entire definition is Government doublespeak, well actually, really worse. If the Government considers recent usage to be within the past year then why not write a simple one line sentence saying so? I was wondering if any Federal Court has issued a decision that defined such terms as recent and present?The government is providing guidance on what is LIKELY to be considered proof of being an illegal user of a controlled substance. However, ultimately it is a fact to be determined by a jury. If charged you either stipulate to that fact and plead guilty, or go to trial and let a jury decide if the government has proven that element of the crime.

DMF
November 10, 2012, 08:47 AM
But one's subjective perception just might not mean too much to a judge.

Yep...my point exactly. The BATF could write a simple phrase like;

"If you have used a illegal drug, or been arrested and convicted of possession, transportation, or distributing a illegal drug as defined by >>> regardless of the severity level, i.e. citation, infraction, misdemeanor or felony, in the past 12 months then you are not allowed to purchase a firearm."

Simple clear concise.
They don't do that because contrary to what some spew around here the ATF, does not simply create law on it's own, and the determination of what constitutes proof of being an illegal user of a controlled substance is a fact determined by the jury, not ATF.

powder
November 10, 2012, 10:22 AM
If marijuana use is legallized in your state, you are no longer an " unlawful user"....

Individual States have the Authority to be LESS restrictive than Federal Laws, but NOT MORE restrictive. However, they then also subject themselves (The State gov't.) to punitive Federal discipline, for lack of a better phrase, IE Highway funding withheld, etc..

However, here's the overwhelming misnomer that is being overlooked by the advocates: legalizing marijuana will not eliminate the criminal activities surrounding it, and comparing it to alcohol prohibition is a red-herring argument, as the surrounding scenarios are not even close to being parallels. Tens of thousands of people will continue to be murdered in the processes of getting marijuana traffic around the U.S.. Just like alcohol and tobacco, it is a politically charged topic with literally tons of money attached to it, and it will be bloody.

allaroundhunter
November 10, 2012, 10:37 AM
If marijuana use is legalized in your state, you are no longer an " unlawful user"....

The Form 4473 is a federal form, and therefore its questions are regarding federal laws (I believe). That being the case, even if use of marijuana is legal in your state, until federal law changes you are still an unlawful user. You can still be charged by federal authorities which means that it is still unlawful.

Federal law is still the highest in the land. What these states are doing is not being less restrictive than the federal government, they are legalizing something that is deemed illegal.

These states are sticking their necks out, and I am waiting to see how the federal government responds.

Frank Ettin
November 10, 2012, 11:31 AM
If marijuana use is legallized in your state, you are no longer an " unlawful user"....Nope, your absolutely wrong about that. I laid it all out in post 11. Under federal, marijuana can not be lawfully used or prescribed. Any person using marijuana, even if legal under state law, is an unlawful user of a controlled substance under federal law.

...Individual States have the Authority to be LESS restrictive than Federal Laws, but NOT MORE restrictive. However, they then also subject themselves (The State gov't.) to punitive Federal discipline, for lack of a better phrase, IE Highway funding withheld, etc....And that is also incorrect and an over simplification of federal preemption.

If federal law has "occupied the field", it will supersede state law overall. But in general, otherwise state law may be more restrictive. For example, In some States requirements for firearm possession and/or transfer are more onerous than required under federal law.

The practice of the federal government to fund, or withhold funding, is another matter. That is a way for the federal government to assert authority over matters that are outside its constitutional power to regulate directly. So since the federal government may not directly set national highway speed limits, it conditions its funding of state highways upon States setting certain speed limits.

powder
November 10, 2012, 11:55 AM
Really. Let's use that theory to the age of consensual sexual relations: Federal vs. individual states.

If Federal law were the highest law in the land, that all states HAD to abide by, there would be no "medicinal marijuana" dispensaries in 17 states today. Correct? The DEA would be just busting and locking down every single dispensary as it opened.

Going back to post #11, I see the first point is to state that state's laws are irrelevant? Also, within post #11 what are you referencing, when, and which is your personal opinion?

allaroundhunter
November 10, 2012, 12:01 PM
The fact that they don't do anything about it does not make it any less illegal. It is still a violation of federal law, and one can still be prosecuted for it.

If the DEA were to go after a California doctor for prescribing medical marijuana, then he might do time, he might not. However, he most likely would not lose his privilege to practice medicine in California because he was within the laws of the state.

There are many laws that are around that take a low priority to enforcing. Going after the illicit drug trade is more important to the DEA than going after states.

The Lone Haranguer
November 10, 2012, 12:02 PM
I have a feeling these pot laws are going to get stomped flat by the federal government, so your high is going to be short lived. :evil:

Frank Ettin
November 10, 2012, 12:24 PM
Really. Let's use that theory to the age of consensual sexual relations: Federal vs. individual states....Really? Since when have the feds tried to set the age of consent?

...If Federal law were the highest law in the land, that all states HAD to abide by, there would be no "medicinal marijuana" dispensaries in 17 states today. Correct? The DEA would be just busting and locking down every single dispensary as it opened.. In fact, under the Constitution, federal law is the "supreme law of the land" (Article VI, Clause 2):Clause 2. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


There is such a thing as "prosecutorial discretion." A prosecuting authority gets to decide when, where and how to enforce criminal laws. So a prosecuting authority, like the United States Justice Department may decide as a matter of policy to go easy on something like medical marijuana, at least under some circumstances. However, I guess you haven't been keeping up on current events; for example see --


"Obama Explains Increasing Medical Marijuana Crackdowns, Raids..." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/obama-marijuana-raids-rolling-stone_n_1451744.html)


"U.S. raids L.A. marijuana shops..." (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/26/local/la-me-medical-marijuana-20120926)


"Southern Oregon medical marijuana farm raided by federal drug agents..."
(http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2012/09/southern_oregon_medical_mariju.html)

"2 Anaheim pot shops raided,..." (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/marijuana-369162-federal-owners.html)


"Sacramento marijuana dispensary latest target of federal crackdown"
(http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/12/4554830/sacramento-marijuana-dispensary.html)


See also the fairly recent decision of the United States Supreme Court upholding federal regulation of marijuana in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).

Sam1911
November 10, 2012, 12:57 PM
Individual States have the Authority to be LESS restrictive than Federal Laws, but NOT MORE restrictive.You've got that more or less exactly backward.

The federal government has made laws which are the law of the whole land, period. Anything the feds don't directly control is subject to whatever laws the individual states make regarding those issues.

For example -- the federal NFA '34 and FOPA '86 declare that full-auto guns must be federally registered and that there cannot be any more sold into the civilian market after 1986. Some states make full auto weapons completely illegal for their citizens. Some make them subject to additional registration beyond the federal registration. Some say, as long as it is registered according to federal law, that's good enough for us. Some have "no comment."

However, in no place in the country does a state's law, or lack of laws, make it so you can own a full-auto that isn't registered with the BATFE, and/or that is newer than 1986. The federal law is universal -- a state may make the law TOUGHER, but cannot make it less restrictive than whatever the federal laws require.

Same applies to drugs, and "prohibited persons" with regard to gun ownership.

BSA1
November 10, 2012, 01:04 PM
These states are sticking their necks out, and I am waiting to see how the federal government responds.

Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

James Madison was concerned that enumerating various rights could "enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution." To attempt to solve this problem, Madison submitted this draft to Congress:

The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.[5]

Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Tenth Amendment makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited only to the powers granted in the Constitution.

States sticking their necks out? Hardly. They are traveling down the difficult round to limit Federal expansion in issues reserved for the states.

Frank Ettin
November 10, 2012, 01:10 PM
...Going back to post #11, I see the first point is to state that state's laws are irrelevant? Also, within post #11 what are you referencing, when, and which is your personal opinion Yes, I've stated that with regard to guns and marijuana, state laws are irrelevant.


I thought my references were clear: the Controlled Substances Act; the Gun Control Act, specifically 18 USC 922(g)(3); and ATF regulations, specifically 27 CFR 478.11. And I've explained in that post and others why state laws are irrelevant.


As for my opinion, since I'm a lawyer, we can call it my professional opinion.

Sam1911
November 10, 2012, 01:23 PM
Surely there is a 10th Amendment issue here, as Congress has used various means over the centuries (mostly the "Commerce Clause") to expand what matters they have direct control over. Some states are indeed trying to push back against that. The marijuana issue is a major front of this, as are the various gun freedom laws being passed (or considered) by states like Montana which say they'll resist federal gun laws being enforced by federal officers within their state's boundaries.

However, absent a HUGE shift -- a really HUGE one ... about equivalent to the major debates that framed the Civil War -- in the way federalism works in the US, that's not going ANYWHERE. In essence, the federal government allowing (not resisting, not squelching) such a rejection by the states of federal power would reverse nearly everything about the way our government has worked for almost the last 200 years.

While it would be a much closer form of government to what the Constitution actually describes, and which almost all of the founding fathers envisioned, it is far different from anything even our grandfather's grandfathers ever lived under.

powder
November 10, 2012, 02:41 PM
Yes, I've stated that with regard to guns and marijuana, state laws are irrelevant.

I thought my references were clear: the Controlled Substances Act; the Gun Control Act, specifically 18 USC 922(g)(3); and ATF regulations, specifically 27 CFR 478.11. And I've explained in that post and others why state laws are irrelevant.

As for my opinion, since I'm a lawyer, we can call it my professional opinion.

a.) For an attorney, you are unclear: your point # 1, in post #11, simply states..."State laws are irrelevant." You do NOT specify in any manner that you are referring to.

b.) You do not differentiate in your posting as to which information is your opinion, and to which is a supposed statute reference. No, you are as clear as mud in your posting per this matter. Calling yourself "a lawyer" is just as ambiguous and reckless of a term, without being more specific as to which field you are credentialed in.

Personally, I find it interesting that while we have Moderators here who are willing to offer their personal opinions as legally factual, also allow anti-Law Enforcement threads to survive and thrive. Lock this one down and/or delete it for some consistency here.

Carl N. Brown
November 10, 2012, 02:57 PM
Justice Department spokewoman Nanda Chitre said enforcement of the federal Controlled Substances Act remained unchanged, according to an AP news item in this morning's paper ("Colorado, Washington await federal response to marijuana measure").

Marijuana legal under state law either recreationally or medicinally when federal law deems it a "controlled substance" with no accepted medical use is a crazy argument.

I don't think any lesser jurisdiction tried to legalize alcohol under federal Prohibition. Did they?

This is like the crazy argument that Phoenix ATF Group Supervisor David Voth sold to CNN/Fortune reporter Katherine Eban: that lax Arizona state gun laws kept the feds from enforcing federal law against straw purchase and dealing w/o license. Therefore, there was no deliberate gunwalking policy during Fast and Furious; their hands were tied by lax state gun law promulgated by NRA and GOP. The Democrat Minority Report, the Joint Staff Majority Report, and the Inspector General Review all point the finger of blame at Voth et 13 alia for pursuing a deliberate policy of walking guns.

State law trumping federal law does not wash with Article VI of the constitution: Law of the Land supremacy is in this order: supreme is the Constitution as amended; then federal laws in accordance with the Constitition; next treaties approved by Congress; after that state constitutions; and bottom state law. There is no way a state law can supercede a federal law that has not been declared unConstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Of course the granddaddy of the 1970 Controlled Substances Act was the 1914 Harrison Narcotics Act which is also (according to Justice MacReynolds in Miller '39) the legal underpinning of the 1934 National Firearms Act. Bringing down the marijuana prohibition might have the side effect of opening up the NFA registry to new machineguns. Or not.

Frank Ettin
November 10, 2012, 02:58 PM
For an attorney, you are unclear: your point # 1, in post #11, simply states..."State laws are irrelevant." You do NOT specify in any manner that you are referring to....You might try actually reading the first couple of sentences:And while the feds might decide not to press the marijuana use issue for those who are using marijuana in accordance with a state medical marijuana law, that doesn't mean that they won't pursue a federal weapons charge for a marijuana user, medical marijuana law or not, found in possession of a gun.

Here's the deal:

[1] State law is irrelevant....If that's unclear to you in context, I'm afraid I can't help you.

...b.) You do not differentiate in your posting as to which information is your opinion, and to which is a supposed statute reference. No, you are as clear as mud in your posting per this matter. Calling yourself "a lawyer" is just as ambiguous and reckless of a term, without being more specific as to which field you are credentialed in....If anyone has trouble understanding my post and would like to ask some questions, he's welcome to do so. As to what field I'm credentialed in, in California, other than a few recognized specialties, it's just a matter of being a member of the Bar, which I have been for more than 35 years. And this is all real simple, straightforward, basic law stuff.

Anyway, I've been around here for a few years, and folks pretty much know my background and the sort of information I can provide.

Carl N. Brown
November 10, 2012, 03:03 PM
According to ATF Open Letter to all Federal Firearms License holders (gun dealers), 26 Sep 2011:

"During a firearms transaction, a potential transferee may advise you that he or she is a user of medical marijuana, or present a medical marijuana card as identification or proof of residency. As you know, Federal Law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), prohibits any person who is an "unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802))" from shipping, transporting, receiving or possessing firearms or ammunition. Marijuana is listed in the Controlled Substances Act as a Schedule I controlled substance, and there are no exceptions in Federal law for marijuana purportedly used for medicinal purposes, even if such use is sanctioned by State law. ....any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and is prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition. ... Further, if you are aware that the potential transferee is in possession of a card authorizing the possession and use of marijuana under State law, then you have "reasonable cause to believe" that the person is an unlawful user of a controlled substance. ...."

Signed by Arthur Herbert, Assitant Director, Enforcement Programs and Services.

BSA1
November 10, 2012, 03:35 PM
I foresee the Feds pursuing enforcment of it's marijuana ban on two fronts both of which may be very effective;

1. Withholding of Federal money to the States on several fronts; loss of Federal money to law enforcemnt agencies, loss of funding based on commerce clause, loss of Federal funding for Medicare/Medicaid for patients using pot.

2. Well publicized jack-booted raids on on small-businesses that sell pot, persons/businesses that grow pot and citizens for possession of pot. This heavy handed enforcement will be designed for maximium publicity to intimidate citizens and to drive use of pot underground.

This has NOTHING to do with the harmful effects of pot. It has EVERYTHING to do with the Federal Government retaining power over the states and individual citizen.

krupparms
November 10, 2012, 03:46 PM
As I live in S.Or. I have been reading this thread with some interest. If as you say that Fed. Law trump's State Law ,then the states anti militia law's concerning the militia would be as null & void as the medical MJ laws. Or am I missing something? Mr. E. Could you respond to this please? I would also like to hear what others think about this?

Sam1911
November 10, 2012, 03:58 PM
If as you say that Fed. Law trump's State Law ,then the states anti militia law's concerning the militia would be as null & void as the medical MJ laws.What state's anti-militia laws? You're going to have to be very specific as to which state laws you feel violate which federal laws.

We're also going to have to be very careful to keep this related to guns and the RKBA. "Militia" issues tend to get off-topic for THR pretty fast.

Rail Driver
November 10, 2012, 04:11 PM
What state's anti-militia laws? You're going to have to be very specific as to which state laws you feel violate which federal laws.

We're also going to have to be very careful to keep this related to guns and the RKBA. "Militia" issues tend to get off-topic for THR pretty fast.
Florida has some very restrictive anti-militia laws which I've wondered about. Firearms are expressly mentioned in those laws. (will edit the post to include citation as soon as I find it)
The laws address intent, which (I believe) is the only reason they were passed, however intent is difficult to prove or disprove.

790.29 Paramilitary training; teaching or participation prohibited.—
(1) This act shall be known and may be cited as the “State Antiparamilitary Training Act.”
(2) As used in this section, the term “civil disorder” means a public disturbance involving acts of violence by an assemblage of three or more persons, which disturbance causes an immediate danger of, or results in, damage or injury to the property or person of any other individual within the United States.
(3)(a) Whoever teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm, destructive device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that the same will be unlawfully employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder within the United States, is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(b) Whoever assembles with one or more persons for the purpose of training with, practicing with, or being instructed in the use of any firearm, destructive device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, intending to unlawfully employ the same for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder within the United States, is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to prohibit any act of a law enforcement officer which is performed in connection with the lawful performance of his or her official duties or to prohibit the training or teaching of the use of weapons to be used for hunting, recreation, competition, self-defense or the protection of one’s person or property, or other lawful use.
History.—s. 1, ch. 82-5; s. 164, ch. 83-216; s. 1220, ch. 97-102.

krupparms
November 10, 2012, 04:21 PM
I don't want this to go into or about militia. I was informed that militia groups are illegal to start &they were not supposed to carry firearms at public meetings. ( If this not case, please let me know. I gave the opinion that would be triumphed by fed. law) .I just would like to know the truth.

Rail Driver
November 10, 2012, 04:24 PM
I don't want this to go into or about militia. I was informed that militia groups are illegal to start &they were not supposed to carry firearms at public meetings. ( If this not case, please let me know. I gave the opinion that would be triumphed by fed. law) .I just would like to know the truth.
I only replied about it because I think it's relevant to the discussion - If federal law always trumps state law, how can these anti-training/anti-militia laws be allowed, but MMJ laws are being fought by a government that blatantly refuses to enforce (or follow) so many of their own laws?

allaroundhunter
November 10, 2012, 04:37 PM
These states are sticking their necks out, and I am waiting to see how the federal government responds.Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

The only problem is that this is not an issue of rights. Marijuana has been deemed illegal at the federal level. It is also in the Constitution that federal law is the law of the land. There is no place to say that state's have the authority to determine the legality of marijuana at a state level. It is illegal, period.

If you are trying to slip this being a 9th or 10th amendment issue, go ahead; but that is just trying to put color into something that is black and white.

Federal law > State law (every time)


But I am curious as to what your argument for this being a 9th amendment issue is?

Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Tenth Amendment makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited only to the powers granted in the Constitution.

Which includes making law, and enforcing it as being higher than state law. Again, I am confused as to how you think this is an infringement of the 10th amendment.

krupparms
November 10, 2012, 04:40 PM
I agree R.D..That is why I asked .The Fed's have let drug dealing in hard drugs continue while they go after medical MJ grows. Burglary &home invasion has skyrocketed as nothing is done to stop it. We must get our priorities straight .

DMF
November 10, 2012, 05:30 PM
The Fed's have let drug dealing in hard drugs continue while they go after medical MJ grows.What are you babbling about? I work in Fed LE. Marijuana cases are rarely prosecuted in federal court unless they are HUGE operations (hundreds, usually thousands, of pounds and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of product), or unless they involve other violations such as using firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking, tax evasion, money laundering, etc. Some 50 plant "care provider" in CO or CA isn't getting hammered by the feds.

Second, "medical" use of marijuana is a huge lie. Anyone who has needed THC (tetrahydrocannabinol, the active compound in Marijuana) has been able to get it legally by prescription for many decades, in all 50 states in pill form. The pill is called Marinol (brand name for dronabinol) made by Abbott Labs, and used to be a schedule II drug, and is now schedule III. So it's a huge lie to say marijuana needed to be legalized to provide THC for medical use.

At least the most recent efforts in CO and WA are honest in that they are about recreational use, rather than the lie of "medical" marijuana.

Rail Driver
November 10, 2012, 05:37 PM
What are you babbling about? I work in Fed LE. Marijuana cases are rarely prosecuted in federal court unless they are HUGE operations (hundreds, usually thousands, of pounds and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of product), or unless they involve other violations such as using firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking, tax evasion, money laundering, etc. Some 50 plant "care provider" in CO or CA isn't getting hammered by the feds.

Second, "medical" use of marijuana is a huge lie. Anyone who has needed THC (tetrahydrocannabinol, the active compound in Marijuana) has been able to get it legally by prescription for many decades, in all 50 states in pill form. The pill is called Marinol (brand name for dronabinol) made by Abbott Labs, and used to be a schedule II drug, and is now schedule III. So it's a huge lie to say marijuana needed to be legalized to provide THC for medical use.

At least the most recent efforts in CO and WA are honest in that they are about recreational use, rather than the lie of "medical" marijuana.
Not completely disagreeing with you, but if I were in a situation where I needed the drug for a bonafide medical reason, I certainly wouldn't want it in pill form - I have no earthly idea what the pharmaceutical companies do to the compound, what they put in it, and whether it's even safe or not (the FDA obviously has issues with testing pharmaceuticals for safety or we wouldn't have so many class action lawsuits due to inadequately tested drugs being pushed on our people).

Personally I would much prefer any medicinal compounds I ingest to be as natural as possible. I don't trust a "medicine" that was created by a corporation whose only purpose is to make money.

allaroundhunter
November 10, 2012, 05:48 PM
Not completely disagreeing with you, but if I were in a situation where I needed the drug for a bonafide medical reason, I certainly wouldn't want it in pill form - I have no earthly idea what the pharmaceutical companies do to the compound, what they put in it, and whether it's even safe or not (the FDA obviously has issues with testing pharmaceuticals for safety or we wouldn't have so many class action lawsuits due to inadequately tested drugs being pushed on our people).

Personally I would much prefer any medicinal compounds I ingest to be as natural as possible. I don't trust a "medicine" that was created by a corporation whose only purpose is to make money.

Only problem with that is that herbal (natural) remedies do not have to be submitted to the FDA at all for testing..... As a result there can be some serious problems. Here is an example or two:

A growing number of Americans are using herbal products for preventive and therapeutic purposes. The manufacturers of these products are not required to submit proof of safety and efficacy to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration before marketing. For this reason, the adverse effects and drug interactions associated with herbal remedies are largely unknown. Ginkgo biloba extract, advertised as improving cognitive functioning, has been reported to cause spontaneous bleeding, and it may interact with anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents. St. John's wort, promoted as a treatment for depression, may have monoamine oxidase–inhibiting effects or may cause increased levels of serotonin, dopamine and norepinephrine. Although St. John's wort probably does not interact with foods that contain tyramine, it should not be used with prescription antidepressants. Ephedrine-containing herbal products have been associated with adverse cardiovascular events, seizures and even death.

-From the American Academy of Family Physicians

krupparms
November 10, 2012, 05:58 PM
As I stated, I live here! The Feds ARE going after EVEN SMALL MEDICAL GROWS &TAKING THEM TO FED.COURT! That is fact. I don't care if you believe it or not, it is fact . I also am not endorseing MJ! Med.or not just stateing what is going on. The government has a long history of only enforceing laws that are convenient for them. Once again fact. Sorry if that bothers you. JMO.

HorseSoldier
November 10, 2012, 08:27 PM
What are you babbling about? I work in Fed LE. Marijuana cases are rarely prosecuted in federal court unless they are HUGE operations (hundreds, usually thousands, of pounds and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of product), or unless they involve other violations such as using firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking, tax evasion, money laundering, etc.

+1. Here in Alaska, marijuana possession for personal use in one's residence is decriminalized at the state level, though sales and trafficking are still illegal as is being in possession outside your residence. So, while it bears noting that the new laws in Washington and Colorado are much more sweeping, it also bears noting that the DEA and other federal agencies simply do not have the manpower to try and take up the slack in state level enforcement for simple possession. Actually, like DMF said, they don't get involved much at all in drug cases in AK, the main exception I've seen being interstate trafficking operations (which seems like an appropriate role for federal agencies).

As for the OP's original question about firearms purchase and drug use -- here in Alaska, I'm not familiar with any cases where someone was federally prosecuted for lying about marijuana use when purchasing a firearm (but I work in LE at the municipal level, so don't pretend to have exhaustive knowledge of federal cases, and may just not be aware of a handful of cases where it did occur).

What that probably means, however, is that many Alaskans have simply lied on the forms when purchasing firearms. I'm not excusing criminal behavior, but these are the sorts of secondary criminal conduct you get when a government restriction or prohibition is significantly out of step with the world view of large numbers of citizens -- the same sort of thing happened with alcohol prohibition, with a pen stroke effectively making many (most?) Americans law breakers.

The word I get is that LE is pretty much hog tied on making arrests stick when they suspect someone is under the influence of MM because there is no statutory level.

I'm sure that varies from state to state, but here in AK if the concern is an intoxicant besides alcohol impairing driving, it's not much of a limiter. It does deprive the DA of the very nice piece of evidence that a blood or breath alcohol test provides, but that just makes things like officer observations and audio or video recordings of the defendant from the time of arrest and processing more significant.

Alaska doesn't have a simple public intoxication law, per se, so that isn't an issue here in a way that it might be a limiter on police authority elsewhere.

However, here's the overwhelming misnomer that is being overlooked by the advocates: legalizing marijuana will not eliminate the criminal activities surrounding it, and comparing it to alcohol prohibition is a red-herring argument, as the surrounding scenarios are not even close to being parallels. Tens of thousands of people will continue to be murdered in the processes of getting marijuana traffic around the U.S.. Just like alcohol and tobacco, it is a politically charged topic with literally tons of money attached to it, and it will be bloody.

I don't know that that tracks very logically to me if you mean legalization at the national level. If you mean that some states decriminalizing or legalizing won't decrease drug violence on a national level, then it makes more sense. Here in AK we have occasional murders over user-level quantities of hard drugs, but not so much about user-level amounts of pot (and both are just statistical noise compared to homicides involving alcohol), but up here major grow operations and the trafficking level of stuff is still quite illegal and does result in violent crime (most of our home invasion robberies, for instance, involve people going after dealers for their drugs or their cash).

Nationwide legalization would drain the pond entirely as it results to marijuana -- you might see some initial kickback from the criminal element losing their revenue stream, but the business world would jump on that revenue source like a hobo on a ham sandwich and would not be at all shy about forcing local, state, and federal law enforcement to take action against criminals hampering their legitimate business efforts. Prohibition denies those involved in the marijuana industry recourse to the law for thefts, robberies, etc., and that drives violence. The same was true when alcohol was outlawed, and when the repeal of Prohibition denied that money to organized criminal gangs they branched out into other directions (including the drug trade).

krupparms
November 10, 2012, 09:04 PM
I would agree with most of what H.S. said. But the local LE is no longer around & the Fed's HAVE stepped in &are taking up the slack here in S.OR. .I have no reason to lie about it. It is in the local papers & on the local news.Check for you're self! Since this is turning into a argument, I will take my leave. Good Night.

Zoogster
November 10, 2012, 10:10 PM
A lot of who they enforce it on is dependent on asset forfeiture.
This often means they go after larger grows because people doing larger grows typically have land.
However they can also go after home owners too.
You see property involved in illegal drug production under the law can often be seized.
Most assets in the home, and cars etc can also be seized if they merely claim they were at least partially paid for by illegal drug income, and the drug producer cannot refute that.
These crimes are also accompanied by hefty fines, fines that are so high they may also take even what they cannot outright seize as partial payment, like if say the person has gold or other very valuable liquid assets.

Bottom line is they can come in and take a lot or in some cases most of what a person owns just because they are illegally manufacturing.

If you consider the average home is worth hundreds of thousands many places, home owners are a gold mine. They will often at least pay for the prosecution or a good portion of it, if not make income for the agency involved.


Now the reverse is also somewhat true, those with no assets typically can't afford decent lawyers and so are easy to prosecute. So they do that sometimes too, but asset forfeiture is much more attractive.

Remember when the ATF bulk ordered the multitools with 'Always Think Forfeiture' engraved on them as a cute play on their acronym? Well it is not just the ATF that thinks like that.
Many local, state, and federal agencies obtain a good portion of budget from seizing assets.
I have lived places where the Sheriff had entire fleets of vehicles that were seized assets, repainted and used for official duties. Like seized offroad vehicles used to patrol offroad, seized boats used, etc
With many more sold in auctions for profit.
The worse the financial situation of the County or city the more interested they were, and I imagine now with a lot of budgets hard to balance it is even more attractive to law enforcement.
than it normally is.


In California what state and local officials also do to arrest and prosecute people that are abiding by state law is they have a Federal Agent technically do the arrest. A couple federal agents will be 'assisted' by dozens of local law enforcemnt to raid a place legally growing or selling marijuana under state law.
This means when the local Sheriff is not favorable to marijuana they just place a call to the local Federal agents in the region and plan a date.
In all reality it is really the Sheriff doing the raid, initiating it, and providing most of the manpower for it, but technically it is the Feds and it is handled in Federal court.
Many state and local outfits can apply for various federal funding to combat drugs, and proactively doing such things can make it easier to get additional federal funding.
While they typically weigh the plants at wet weight (drug is much lighter at dry weight) and multiply or estimate for the crop, and count all the parts that would not even be used or sold like the primary stem, roots, etc, and then factor that weight as if it was worth the highest estimate for street sales they can find (often beyond value of even much higher quality) to arrive at some insane street value.
They then quote this street value as thier accomplishment.
It is pretty comical. But it is how they show they are getting a lot done, and justify getting a lot of funding to do even more in the future.

oneounceload
November 10, 2012, 10:31 PM
I am old enough to remember the ad that says....
"Why do you think they call it DOPE?"

You want to smoke, leave your guns at someone's house and never touch them again

Krogen
November 10, 2012, 11:27 PM
Been reading this with interest; no amusement. It will indeed be a can of worms in Washington. The new law puts the state in the distribution business big time; ostensibly for tax revenue. Ironic that Washington voters recently took the state out of the liquor business only to make the state a dope peddler. Gotta wonder who the feds will indict for the state's distribution business.

DMF
November 11, 2012, 01:16 AM
As I stated, I live here! The Feds ARE going after EVEN SMALL MEDICAL GROWS &TAKING THEM TO FED.COURT! That is fact. I don't care if you believe it or not, it is fact . I also am not endorseing MJ! Med.or not just stateing what is going on. The government has a long history of only enforceing laws that are convenient for them. Once again fact. Sorry if that bothers you. JMO.

So it's fact you say?

So you won't have any trouble posting proof of that alleged fact.

See here are the real facts. The AG has sent out his orders to the US Attorneys in the Districts in States that have "medical" marijuana laws, and basically has said they won't investigate/prosecute if the people are complying with the state laws. Here's the proof:

http://blogs.justice.gov/main/archives/192

Here is the most recent MJ prosecution from your state from just 5 days ago:
http://www.justice.gov/dea/divisions/sea/2012/sea110512.shtml

As you can see they didn't simply go after a dispensary complying with state laws, they went after a dispensary used as a front for large scale trafficking. The case started with a seizure of marijuana being sent to Florida.

Before that the last major marijuana case in OR was in June:
http://www.justice.gov/usao/or/PressReleases/2012/20120612_nelson.html

Again this was using "medical" marijuana dispensaries to cover for drug trafficking, and had weapons violations with it.

When you really look at what has happened in OR, the feds have not targeted the dispensaries that actually comply with OR law, following the guidance from the AG, but have only prosecuted people that are involved in large scale trafficking, and/or have other associated criminal violations, just as I stated earlier.

However, let's see your proof of your claimed "fact," regarding the USAO in the District of OR frequently prosecuting dispensaries that are actually complying with OR law, rather than using the dispensaries as a sham to engage in large scale trafficking and/or other associated federal criminal violations.

Forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting for legitimate sources from you to prove your claimed "fact."

DMF
November 11, 2012, 01:24 AM
Not completely disagreeing with you, but if I were in a situation where I needed the drug for a bonafide medical reason, I certainly wouldn't want it in pill form - I have no earthly idea what the pharmaceutical companies do to the compound, what they put in it, and whether it's even safe or not (the FDA obviously has issues with testing pharmaceuticals for safety or we wouldn't have so many class action lawsuits due to inadequately tested drugs being pushed on our people).

Personally I would much prefer any medicinal compounds I ingest to be as natural as possible. I don't trust a "medicine" that was created by a corporation whose only purpose is to make money.Are you kidding me?

The requirements to get a pharmaceutical through FDA testing and onto market are extremely strict and extremely expensive. It takes years, and an average of close to one BILLION dollars to get pharmaceutical approved by the FDA and on the market. Yet, you would rather buy marijuana grown by some amateur with no safety regulations whatsoever and consume it through methods that have no consistent dosing control?

You really need to learn a lot more about medicine, particularly pharmaceuticals.

An example of the deadly dangers associated with "medical" marijuana, which is not something you have to worry about with Marinol from Abbott Labs:
http://www.denverpost.com/news/marijuana/ci_21515255/warning-issued-marijuana-mold-exposure
"Colorado researchers are warning that exposure to mold found in marijuana could be deadly.

A team working with National Jewish Health researcher Dr. John Martyny said Monday that a review of 30 marijuana-growing operations in Denver, Littleton and Larimer County and found mold levels at times 100 times higher than considered safe."

But hey mold is as "natural as possible," so it must be okay.

Rail Driver
November 11, 2012, 01:32 AM
Are you kidding me?

The requirements to get a pharmaceutical through FDA testing and onto market are extremely strict and extremely expensive. It takes years, and an average of close to one BILLION dollars to get pharmaceutical approved by the FDA and on the market. Yet, you would rather buy marijuana grown by some amateur with no safety regulations whatsoever and consume it through methods that have no consistent dosing control?

You really need to learn a lot more about medicine, particularly pharmaceuticals.

An example of the deadly dangers associated with "medical" marijuana, which is not something you have to worry about with Marinol from Abbott Labs:
http://www.denverpost.com/news/marijuana/ci_21515255/warning-issued-marijuana-mold-exposure
"Colorado researchers are warning that exposure to mold found in marijuana could be deadly.

A team working with National Jewish Health researcher Dr. John Martyny said Monday that a review of 30 marijuana-growing operations in Denver, Littleton and Larimer County and found mold levels at times 100 times higher than considered safe."

But hey mold is as "natural as possible," so it must be okay.

Mold on marijuana results from improper growing and storage conditions - I'm not an idiot.

If pharmaceuticals are so safe, why is it that every few months you see a TV commercial or hear on the radio about huge class action lawsuits over FDA APPROVED drugs that were declared safe being recalled because they were killing people or causing permanent damage?

You go right ahead and keep drinking the koolaid - Me, I've never been healthier in my life since I went all natural.

The FDA lists drug recalls on their website. Just in the past 60 days, 7 drugs have been recalled. - http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/default.htm#bottom

Archives listing all drug recalls by year are available on the FDA site.

In order for a drug to be recalled by the FDA, it first must be tested and approved. A recall means they said it was safe and then later learned it wasn't.

Frank Ettin
November 11, 2012, 01:41 AM
This used to be about guns. It's now off topic.

If you enjoyed reading about "Colorado Marijuana Law and Federal Form 4473" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!