Thanks Frank, but I still find the "current user" definition rather vague. The inference examples from evidence of use in one or five years is clear, but these are just examples. The broader statement in the law that "the unlawful use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct." could be interpreted differently by different courts and may include periods much shorter than one or five years. Likewise the broad statement in the case law U.S. v. Burchard "...the regular use of a controlled substance either close in time to or contemporaneous with the period of time he possessed the firearm..." is equally vague. I doubt that one's defense could successfully rely solely on the examples. Does anyone know of other case law that adds some clarity?
I wish they'd just put the pot issue to bed legislatively. It's way past time.