An OK judge rules that the law banning marijuana users from possesing guns is unconstitutional

[westernrover]

...As a libertarian, I believe that we should be able to put whatever we like into our bodies. ....

Having put whatever we like into our bodies, should we also be able to drive a car?

Isn't the problem with the kind of atomized individualism that tells the collectivist state "hands off!" that it gives the individual's desires, however immoral or destructive they are, the status of the rule of law? No doubt your aversion to statism is that it reduces concern for morality and justice to nothing more than a cover for the expansion of its power. Collectivism claims that preservation of the unity of society justifies the sacrifice of all respect for the individual. With this dichotomy, we've been left with some kind of uneasy equilibrium maintained by political forces that produce a result that is considered "pragmatic."

Don't you have a desire to live together in moral community committed to justice and righteousness? Can we achieve that by surrendering our right to defend ourselves to some civil authority or will this come about by the consent of isolated, autonomous individuals? Isn't doing justice uniquely the function of the state in that its authority alone can defend (in the sense of a defense at law) the weak against the mighty? And isn't righteousness the responsibility of the individual? Would you say that an individual can put whatever they like into their body and be righteous in so doing?

 

[TTv2]

Having put whatever we like into our bodies, should we also be able to drive a car?

Isn't the problem with the kind of atomized individualism that tells the collectivist state "hands off!" that it gives the individual's desires, however immoral or destructive they are, the status of the rule of law? No doubt your aversion to statism is that it reduces concern for morality and justice to nothing more than a cover for the expansion of its power. Collectivism claims that preservation of the unity of society justifies the sacrifice of all respect for the individual. With this dichotomy, we've been left with some kind of uneasy equilibrium maintained by political forces that produce a result that is considered "pragmatic."

Don't you have a desire to live together in moral community committed to justice and righteousness? Can we achieve that by surrendering our right to defend ourselves to some civil authority or will this come about by the consent of isolated, autonomous individuals? Isn't doing justice uniquely the function of the state in the sense that its authority alone can defend (in the sense of a defense at law) the weak against the mighty? And isn't righteousness the responsibility of the individual? Would you say that an individual can put whatever they like into their body and be righteous in so doing?

If you want to live in a moral community based upon justice and ethics, then you'd be in a theocracy based on religious fundamentals, not individual liberty.

Your comparison in the first part is flawed because you're equating substance abuse to being able to operate a vehicle, not own a vehicle. The deal with pot is the federal law forbids possession of firearms for people who possess or use marijuana, not the operating/shooting a firearm.

 

[bdickens]

Having put whatever we like into our bodies, should we also be able to drive a car?

I would suggest working on improving your reading comprehension skills. Once again: No one here has suggested that someone be allowed to carry while he's fried any more than they've suggested that he be allowed to carry while he's sloshed.

 

[westernrover]

If you want to live in a moral community based upon justice and ethics, then you'd be in a theocracy based on religious fundamentals, not individual liberty.

Haven't you noticed that you do live in a society of civil religion? Doesn't adherence to religious institutions encompass any content whatsoever, and can't religion be made to serve whatever cause is desired? Because the civil religion will never serve the desires of a few individuals on the fringe, it's purpose has always been to maintain the social structure by integrating the commonly held values of that structure. Couldn't we find ourselves today in the church of the pot-smoking queer trans non-binary matriarch? Being religious is no different than conforming to whatever society expects. That is why those expectations are unanimously inculcated by the state, within the social classes, the national sentiment, the educational institutions, and the media.

Your comparison in the first part is flawed because you're equating substance abuse to being able to operate a vehicle, not own a vehicle. The deal with pot is the federal law forbids possession of firearms for people who possess or use marijuana, not the operating/shooting a firearm.

I was beginning with the premise of libertarian individualism which would make no distinction between owning and driving -- the state would have no authority to interfere with either. If you're supposing it has the authority to interfere with the use of the firearm, but not owning one, what uses do you suppose it can regulate? Concealed carry? Or do we have to wait until the stoner shoots someone? Wouldn't that be analogous to saying we'd have to wait for the drunk driver to hit someone before we could prosecute them?

 

[westernrover]

I would suggest working on improving your reading comprehension skills. Once again: No one here has suggested that someone be allowed to carry while he's fried any more than they've suggested that he be allowed to carry while he's sloshed.

Ok, so he can possess but cannot carry? Why is the distinction made there? And is it made only when he's actually fried? How do you measure that? Or is it when he's addicted under 21 U.S. Code § 802? (remember this is pertaining to narcotics also because the statement I was responding to was "whatever we like.")

 

[TTv2]

Haven't you noticed that you do live in a society of civil religion? Doesn't adherence to religious institutions encompass any content whatsoever, and can't religion be made to serve whatever cause is desired? Because the civil religion will never serve the desires of a few individuals on the fringe, it's purpose has always been to maintain the social structure by integrating the commonly held values of that structure. Couldn't we find ourselves today in the church of the pot-smoking queer trans non-binary matriarch? Being religious is no different than conforming to whatever society expects. That is why those expectations are unanimously inculcated by the state, within the social classes, the national sentiment, the educational institutions, and the media.

We may live in society, but we also live in a republic that was created to form a more perfect union and while those who wrote the Constitution were religious people themselves, they did not have any intention of founding the nation to be solely based on religious principles because they understood that religion was a powerful tool to suppress liberty, however they would not allow the government to have the power to curtail religion.

Society can have a widespread belief of what is acceptable behaviors to be expected from others, but the reality is that that has no basis on the law as society is often ignorant of reality and truth, which is why the rights given to us through our very existence apply to the individual, not the collective.

I was beginning with the premise of libertarian individualism which would make no distinction between owning and driving -- the state would have no authority to interfere with either. If you're supposing it has the authority to interfere with the use of the firearm, but not owning one, what uses do you suppose it can regulate? Concealed carry? Or do we have to wait until the stoner shoots someone? Wouldn't that be analogous to saying we'd have to wait for the drunk driver to hit someone before we could prosecute them?

Let's equate being stoned to being drunk, there are laws that don't allow people to operate a motor vehicle on a public road, but private roads and land there's no jurisdiction thus for carrying a firearm I think that would apply to pot smokers who are only in their homes or on their own property. Once they step off their property onto public lands, then they're carrying while under the influence.

We have laws against public intoxication and I doubt that it is legal for someone to be in public, drunk, and armed. On their own property tho, they can drink and shoot all day long if they wish.

 

[bdickens]

Ok, so he can possess but cannot carry? Why is the distinction made there? And is it made only when he's actually fried? How do you measure that? Or is it when he's addicted under 21 U.S. Code § 802? (remember this is pertaining to narcotics also because the statement I was responding to was "whatever we like.")

Why are you being obtuse?

 

[TTv2]

Why are you being obtuse?

He can't accept the possibility that people who smoke weed can be good people because his religious upbringing forbids him to be able to see people who seek nonreligious pleasure are bad.

 

[rust collector]

In case anyone would like to read the opinion, which runs 53 pages in length, I have linked it here. https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/zdpxdnqykpx/02032023harrison.pdf It is worth your time to learn what the OP is actually about.

Many of us have opinions on marijuana and marijuana users, and some can base that on personal experience. Others base their position on observing friends, co-worker and others. Still others learned all they wanted to know by watching Reefer Madness or watching Dragnet. This issue here is whether use of mj disqualifies people from possession or purchase of a firearm because they have used it in the past, because they are impaired or incapacitated by it, or because it is just another way to prevent people from owning guns. Please give it some thought based upon current information. Consult sources you trust, and verify your information. Please keep this discussion centered on the court opinion, don't disparage people who do not share your opinion, and do what you can to add to the knowledge that is applied to this issue.

 

[.38 Special]

Having put whatever we like into our bodies, should we also be able to drive a car?

Isn't the problem with the kind of atomized individualism that tells the collectivist state "hands off!" that it gives the individual's desires, however immoral or destructive they are, the status of the rule of law? No doubt your aversion to statism is that it reduces concern for morality and justice to nothing more than a cover for the expansion of its power. Collectivism claims that preservation of the unity of society justifies the sacrifice of all respect for the individual. With this dichotomy, we've been left with some kind of uneasy equilibrium maintained by political forces that produce a result that is considered "pragmatic."

Don't you have a desire to live together in moral community committed to justice and righteousness? Can we achieve that by surrendering our right to defend ourselves to some civil authority or will this come about by the consent of isolated, autonomous individuals? Isn't doing justice uniquely the function of the state in that its authority alone can defend (in the sense of a defense at law) the weak against the mighty? And isn't righteousness the responsibility of the individual? Would you say that an individual can put whatever they like into their body and be righteous in so doing?

Yes. That is precisely what I meant. We should all get high and go for a drive, smoking pot is exactly the same as surrendering the right to self defense, and your morals should be shared, without deviation, by every decent American.

May I be excused now?

 

[westernrover]

...Let's equate being stoned to being drunk, there are laws that don't allow people to operate a motor vehicle on a public road, but private roads and land there's no jurisdiction thus for carrying a firearm I think that would apply to pot smokers who are only in their homes or on their own property. Once they step off their property onto public lands, then they're carrying while under the influence.

We have laws against public intoxication and I doubt that it is legal for someone to be in public, drunk, and armed. On their own property tho, they can drink and shoot all day long if they wish.

How about in the apartment next to yours? Want some raging alcoholic paranoid tweakers with guns?

 

[bdickens]

How about in the apartment next to yours? Want some raging alcoholic paranoid tweakers with guns?

Wow! That's a new one for me. I've never seen Red Herring, Reductio ad Absurdum and Non Sequitur all rolled into one before.

 

[.38 Special]

How about in the apartment next to yours? Want some raging alcoholic paranoid tweakers with guns?

I wonder if you have had troubles along those lines.

I always have been very libertarian on the topic, but living in California have certainly noticed an increase in public pot smoking, some of which interferes with enjoyment of life. Among other things, the fellow who rear-ended me on the freeway last Monday was pretty obviously baked. It does make me wonder if the purely libertarian approach is less than perfect.

That, though, is no more a rationale for banning marijuana than it would have been for banning alcohol had the fellow been drunk.

 

[Slamfire]

I wonder if the Judge is part owner of a Head Shop.

I saw lots of Cannabis product bill boards in Oklahoma. I have no idea whether a stoner is more dangerous with a gun than a drunk.

I am glad I can still get my caffeine fix and own firearms. When I drink enough coffee, I am very aggressive in early morning traffic!

 

[.38 Special]

I wonder if the Judge is part owner of a Head Shop.

I saw lots of Cannabis product bill boards in Oklahoma. I have no idea whether a stoner is more dangerous with a gun than a drunk.

I am glad I can still get my caffeine fix and own firearms. When I drink enough coffee, I am very aggressive in early morning traffic!

It's a stereotype, but I'm honestly not sure I've ever seen an aggressive stoner. In my paramedic days the "mean alcoholic" was a daily occurrence, and the "I'm not sure what he took, but damn!" guy was a regular as well. Potheads just weren't on the radar - though that was well before legalization was a thing.

 

[TTv2]

How about in the apartment next to yours? Want some raging alcoholic paranoid tweakers with guns?

There are already undiagnosed schizos in possession of firearms thanks to our nation's garbage mental healthcare system as well as gangbangers who all love posting on TikTok their Glocks with the disconnectors that make them full auto.

Those people are far more dangerous than the recreational marijuana user.

 

[Styx]

Weed is a natural God made underutilized flower of a female plant. Unlike cocaine, crack, meth, and alcohol, it's not made in a lab or a chemical process. It has not destroyed lives in comparison. The war on drugs and the prohibition of MJ has destroyed more lives than the drug itself has. Even though MJ remains in your system, the effects wear and influence wears off rather quickly. It's also not as addictive as alcohol, hard drugs, or even cigarettes. It's a simple all natural plant flower.

To tie all this back into the OP, there's absolutely zero reason why MJ smokers should be stripped of their constitutional, natural, God given, and human right to defend themselves and their families especially when tobacco and alcohol users, both of which are WAY worse, are acceptable.

Heck, there are legal doctor prescribed drugs that are worse and more addictive than MJ... Anyone who supports stripping the right to self defense from MJ smokers who do NOT also support stripping 2A rights from people who drink alcohol and are on a long list of common prescription drugs is being out right hypocritical. There's no "ifs," "ands," or "buts" about that. It's a simple logical conclusion. I respectively feel that many are basing their opinions on fear, bias, and there personal feeling rather than logic and facts.

 

[Styx]

Yes, I have smoked in the past here and there many years ago. It's not my thing, and it's an expensive habit. People who smoke regularly are almost literally burning away a lot of money. With that said, you'd be surprised about how many people smoke MJ. I have friends, coworkers, and acquaintance who all smoke here and there who are of all races, have a family and children, work as nurses, mechanics, technicians, managers at fortune 500 companies, etc. Heck my ex wife of over 15 years works in medical billing, raised our two children who are now adults in college, has no criminal record, and has always had a full time job since I met her smokes weed. These are NOT thugs, violent criminals, or losers even though the stereotype is that the majority of MJ smokers are.

An extremely large segment of society who are regularly hard working otherwise law abiding citizens smoke weed recreationally and some more smoke for doctor prescribed medicinal purposes. They should NOT be prohibited from exercising their rights...

 

[Old Dog]

It has not destroyed lives in comparison.

And that -- is a matter of perspective. Perhaps not in the realm of adult "recreational" -- read: occasional -- cannabis usage. However, there still remains a large body of research indicating that cannabis use among adolescents makes the concept of pot as a "gateway" drug a real thing. One study published by the American Academy of Pediatrics documents findings that adolescents who use cannabis are 104 times more likely to use cocaine than adolescents who never use cannabis. Behaviorally and developmentally it's clear that many of the shared root causes (e.g. genetic predisposition, trauma, unstable psychiatric symptoms, thrill seeking, impulsivity, delay discounting, environmental exposures) that increase an individual’s likelihood of using cannabis also increase the same individual’s likelihood of opioid use. Further, several studies have linked marijuana use to increased risk for psychiatric disorders, including psychosis (schizophrenia), depression, anxiety, and substance use disorders.

The first year I worked in law enforcement, I responded to so many DV calls where alcohol was involved, I quite drinking even beer for well over a year. I've witnessed firsthand the effects of alcoholism on the family unit, as well as drug abuse.

I respectively feel that many are basing their opinions on fear, bias, and there personal feeling rather than logic and facts.

I base my personal opinions on what I've personally witnessed, both in conjunction with my jobs, and within family and friends. I've also personally witnessed the uptick in traffic collisions in a state since marijuana use was legalized. It's not a coincidence.

I don't want stoners handling firearms, period.

 

[Styx]

And that -- is a matter of perspective. Perhaps not in the realm of adult "recreational" -- read: occasional -- cannabis usage. However, there still remains a large body of research indicating that cannabis use among adolescents makes the concept of pot as a "gateway" drug a real thing. One study published by the American Academy of Pediatrics documents findings that adolescents who use cannabis are 104 times more likely to use cocaine than adolescents who never use cannabis. Behaviorally and developmentally it's clear that many of the shared root causes (e.g. genetic predisposition, trauma, unstable psychiatric symptoms, thrill seeking, impulsivity, delay discounting, environmental exposures) that increase an individual’s likelihood of using cannabis also increase the same individual’s likelihood of opioid use. Further, several studies have linked marijuana use to increased risk for psychiatric disorders, including psychosis (schizophrenia), depression, anxiety, and substance use disorders.

The first year I worked in law enforcement, I responded to so many DV calls where alcohol was involved, I quite drinking even beer for well over a year. I've witnessed firsthand the effects of alcoholism on the family unit, as well as drug abuse.

I call bull... Anything can be a "gateway" drug for people with addictive personalities. That could be cigarettes, alcohol, even prescription drugs, or really anything. Correlation does NOT equal causation! It is simply illogical to me that a natural plant that is not considered generally addictive that even a few past Presidents and our current vice president have admitted to smoking is the cause harder drug use. I believe those who venture away from cigarettes, alcohol, and weed to hard drugs would have been addicted to hard drugs, prescription drugs, or would have had some other vise irregardless...

I base my personal opinions on what I've personally witnessed, both in conjunction with my jobs, and within family and friends. I've also personally witnessed the uptick in traffic collisions in a state since marijuana use was legalized. It's not a coincidence.

I believe you are seeing something that's not there. Most people are NOT smoking while driving, people who are on prescription drugs, have not gotten a fulll night's sleep or are tired, people being on cellphones, and of course alcohol is the leading cause of accidents. What you are doing, other than going off topic, is making an assumption that's rooted in your personal bias and not fact. If what you say is true about the uptick in traffic accidents is in fact true, the FACT is there could be an infinite number of other factors or reasons. What you have done is connect dots the dots to your already preconceived bias opinion.

I don't want stoners handling firearms, period.

Good thing that you have no say so in the matter, and constitutional judges who place the Constitution, common sense, and logic above feelings and unsubstantiated baseless opinions will hopefully be deciding.

The mother of my 18 year old daughter and 19 year old son both still live at home. We divorced when they were young. She is a productive law abiding citizen of society who isn't dependent on government. I know she smokes weed every now and then at home when the children aren't th were. God forbid they're all there one night, an armed man breaks into their home, and my ex wife and daughter are possibly violated and all of them are murdered because you don't feel like they should have the right to defend themselves because their mother smoked a plant flower.

 

[bdickens]

However, there still remains a large body of Bovine excrement indicating that cannabis use among adolescents makes the concept of pot as a "gateway" drug a real thing.

Fixed it for you.
https://www.healthline.com/health/is-marijuana-a-gateway-drug#addiction

https://www.cdc.gov/marijuana/health-effects/risk-of-other-drugs.html

 

[Old Dog]

And yet, all the talk around this topic indicates that (1) many folks have no personal experience in the matter and (2) even the "experts" can't agree.

One can Google any number of "studies" that will agree with any position one is taking.

Some of us speak from experience. Myself, I simply don't believe that irresponsible use of alcohol or any drug (however benign you consider it to be) is conducive to responsible ownership of firearms.

Do not take my opinions as my support for government interference or regulation into what one puts in their own bodies. You do you. I do me. As so many here are wont to say, liberty contains risks.

But that doesn't mean I respect those who need to pollute their bodies with drugs or alcohol to get through their daily lives.

Marijuana is legal in my state. I don't care if you use it. Yes, you still have the right to own firearms, and carry them. Just don't handle them, or carry them, when you're stoned. I'm sure federal law will catch up. But much like legal abortion or teaching our children that they can choose their gender identity in grade school, I don't have to agree.

Y'all can make any excuse you want for those that partake, or those that suffer the consequences of partaking, but in the end, it's all just rationalization.

 

[Styx]

And yet, all the talk around this topic indicates that (1) many folks have no personal experience in the matter and (2) even the "experts" can't agree.

One can Google any number of "studies" that will agree with any position one is taking.

Some of us speak from experience. Myself, I simply don't believe that irresponsible use of alcohol or any drug (however benign you consider it to be) is conducive to responsible ownership of firearms.

Do not take my opinions as my support for government interference or regulation into what one puts in their own bodies. You do you. I do me. As so many here are wont to say, liberty contains risks.

But that doesn't mean I respect those who need to pollute their bodies with drugs or alcohol to get through their daily lives.

Y'all can make any excuse you want for those that partake, or those that suffer the consequences of partaking, but in the end, it's all just rationalization.

It's not your body, so why do you care? I'm a Libertarian who really do not respect Democrats or Republicans because both tend to want to dictate or worry to much about what others people are doing in their personal lives. Then they want to utilize big government to impose their will.

I don't like cigarettes or weed, but I don't NOT respect or want someone to lose their constitutional rights over something that's really non of my business. If you recreationally smoke weed, are a productive member of society, and aren't violating my rights, I will always give you the same amount of respect that you give to me.

When I don't like something, I simply don't do it, and I avoid others who are actively doing it. Other than that, I couldn't care any less about what people do in their personal lives behind closed doors... YMMV.

A self defense shoot is either justified or it is not. It's just that simple and black and white. Whether someone smokes weed or not, if an investigation shows that they weren't justified in brandishing or firing their firearm, then they should be held accountable. If they're at home, drank one beer or smoked joint or took prescription pills and armed thugs break into their home, they should be able to defend themselves IMHO.

 

[Old Dog]

It's not your body, so why do you care?

Well, for starters -- in my job (I've recently retired), I had to deal with these folks on a daily basis. And the consequences led to an insufferable amount of paperwork. And affected so many others who didn't share the proclivities of the players. Often by inflicting serious bodily injury, or death.

Operating motor vehicles while under the influence of any substance, or simply going about one's daily routine while under the influence of any substance, in settings that can impact the health and well-being of others, is NOT a constitutional right. I don't give a damn if you're otherwise a "productive member of society."

 

[kwguy]

As a matter of fact we tried that and it fueled a war against a black market for alcohol that the federal government couldn't sustain.

In fact, I believe that silliness led to the first federal gun control legislation.