gun marijuana weed
Shutterstock
◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

In defending this law, the government will likely argue that unlawful drug users are categorically more dangerous with access to firearms than ordinary citizens. Maybe. But it seems like it could be an uphill battle for the government to show that Patrick Daniels’ regular marijuana ingestion makes him appreciably more dangerous than a person who drinks liquor a comparable amount (alcohol is excluded from the list of controlled substances under federal law, and there is no alcohol-based gun prohibition in federal law, so the chronic drinker can keep his gun while the smoker of chronic faces 15 years in prison; this despite the empirical evidence showing the toxic combination of guns and alcohol).

In addition, many states have legalized marijuana, making a judgment that marijuana users are not more dangerous than (say) alcohol users. This was a key point in the argument of then-Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried’s lawsuit on behalf of medical marijuana users in the state—a case for which the 11th Circuit heard arguments in the appeal just last month, and an issue which has been covered on this blog previously. The 11th Circuit may in fact decide to hold the case pending Rahimi.

Applying the criteria the government itself pointed to in assessing the reasonableness of a legislative determination shows the difficulty the government faces in Daniels. First, the government said courts should assess the breadth of the law. “So, if it’s sweeping broadly or indiscriminately and capturing people we think of as ordinary citizens, that’s going to be a problem.” Section 922(g)(3) seems to capture a lot of ordinary citizens who lawfully use marijuana in their state. (Consider that every gun owner with a medical marijuana card is likely subject to the bar.)

Next, the government said courts should review the “justifications and the evidence before the legislature.” Depending on what it can show about specific types of connections, I could see trouble for the government with showing that mere unlawful use, even at a different time from gun possession, creates heightened risk.

In oral argument, the government also urged the courts to look for “legislative consensus.” I’m not sure how many state-level disarmament provisions there are for illegal drug use, but the growing state-level consensus in favor of legalizing marijuana at least cuts against this argument, one would think. The same day as the Rahimi arguments, Ohio became the 24th state to legalize recreational marijuana.

— Pepperdine Law Professor Jake Charles in Dangerous and Irresponsible Citizens

◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

107 COMMENTS

  1. I’m not gonna say that it doesn’t happen but I’ve never seen anybody display mean or violent behavior who was simply smoking pot. A few drinks on the other hand just makes some people nasty. They will turn on their own family and kids.

    • Former prosecutor and present criminal defense attorney: I can definitely say that there are certain people that get violent when high on weed, but it is exponentially rarer than those on alcohol or other drugs.

    • The shooters intoxicated on weed miss their target. Just like the shooters intoxicated on alcohol miss their targets.

      • except that SOME users of weed get a heightened sense of focus and motor control when operating mechanical types of things.. like cars and firearms. The heightened ability to focus intently on what one’s hands are doing can mprove accuracy. This happens for some people, and at a mild to moderate usage level of the substance. Sure, too stoned to stand up dfoes happen…. and I’m not talking about that.
        In the other hand ANY quantity of alcohol dies, by definition, slow motor responses and accuracy. The user might THINK he is doing better, but alcohol affects the motor nerve response, slowing it at a fairly consistent level as BAC rises. Half a glass of wine won’t affect very many to any signficant rate.. thus the ridiculous but near unoversal “BAC level .08 or above” as a legal definition of intixication.

        No such predictable association between quantity and impairment exists with marijuana.

        I say this from my own experience back forty or more years ago when I was an occasional user of the stuff.. mostly as an opportunist. Low dosage rates barely affected me at all, medium did provide heightened motor skills, and more yet, well, my tendency was to go find a cozy corner, curl up, and fall asleep. Would NOT ever drive when approaching this latter condition.

        But the REAL bottom line is, if Charile smokes three Berkely Bombers one afternoon and goes dozey and out, the enxt day he is back to normal. WHY is he banned the possession of firearms the sox days a week he never touches the stuff, even if he DOES use it on Saturday afternoon? THAT is the real crime here.
        That’s saying the same thing as “Charlie gets rin snortin drunk Saturday night, is right blotto till Sunday afternoon. and because of that he must be always prohibited the use of any motor vehicle ever.

      • @Tionico,

        I fully side with Chris’ statement. I’ve known my own fair share of cannabis users over my lifetime. I’ve *never* known any of them to gain sharper motor skills or focus. Not one. Every one of them did, to the contrary, lose focus and ability to safely operate machinery, vehicles, tools, etc. I personally watched a coworker (who had partaken in pot the evening before) put his forklift through a wall. I personally had to correct multiple reports written by other pot-smokers because their math was off…all over the place. I’ve personally known people who lost their lives after causing accidents on the freeway, and their official County toxicology reports showed that they were impaired due to cannabis consumption.

        If someone wants to drink and get buzzed…do it at home and don’t drive or pick up a gun. I support one’s right to partake, but I draw the line at the point where that person is outside endangering my life.

        If someone wants to smoke pot…do it at home and don’t drive or pick up a gun. I support one’s right to partake, but I draw the line at the point where that person is outside endangering my life.

        • haz

          My info is that Olympic athletes are tested for ethanol in competitive shooting – and only competitive shooting.

          Just saying.

        • to I haz a question
          Thank you sir. Only the drug leg@lization crowd believes you can work on someone’s Automobile brakes, shoot a gun accurately, and perform brain surgery. All while under the influence of marijuana.

      • not allowed to drive WHILST UNDER THE INFLUENCE of the marijuana.Same as with alcohol. IMPAIRED is the operant factor, not use of the substance ver at any time anywhere.
        NO one is asking to remove the prohibitions against operating cars or guns WHILE IMPAIRED. I can get drunk Saturday afternoon, sober up, and legally drive Sinday evening. I can smoke one joint of marijuana today, and be prohibited the possession/use of any firearm for years.

        THAT is the issue. NO ONE is begging for permission to use cars or guns WHILE IMPAIRED.

        and no I do not use the vegetable un question. Have not for more than forty years. No interest in returning to it. On the other hand I DO take a drink on occasion, but ALWAYS in a situation where my level of impairment can have any effect in anyone else’s safety or well being. When I am NOT impaired due to alcohol I am no danger to anyone else. But my occasional use of EtOH does NOT get me a lifelong all times and all places ban on the use of motor vehicles, OR firearms. Change the intoxicant, and it no guns for you Bonzo. THAT is the illeghality of the prohibition.

  3. Marijuana should be made legal. Pot heads are no trouble. They would put themselves in the backseat of my car if instructed to do so. Mix in alcohol, coke, meth, etc and all bets were off.

  4. If drug use makes people more dangerous then it makes no sense to legalize it. The fact that so many people want it legalized is a clear indication that it doesn’t make people more dangerous. But then that is nothing more than a pied piper with rats in tow.

    Either it is or it isn’t. This is all just an excuse and has NOTHING to do with how dangerous people are or the drug itself. Personally, I’ve seen for myself the affect it has on people’s lives. I know this sites regulars have drug users/advocates but it really has nothing to do with it. The harms and/or benefits of it are truly beside the point. Your opinion of weed (or mine) means nothing as long as it’s part of the 4473. Forced admission of use on that form is a clear violation of the 5th Amendment.

    This is just a means to take the guns.

    • “If drug use makes people more dangerous then it makes no sense to legalize it.”

      That sounds perfectly logical if you believe the government acts in the best interest of the citizens. I’m not saying pot makes people dangerous. I’m saying the prevailing interest of the government is not the safety and security of the citizens.

    • “The fact that so many people want it legalized is a clear indication that it doesn’t make people more dangerous.”

      no, not really. The fact that so many people want it legalized is a clear indication those people want to smoke pot or make money from selling it.

      • How thick can you get?

        1) People who want to make money selling pot will happily kill you to keep it illegal. It’s no harder to grow than corn, and corn is selling at about fifty cents per pound. Even the most avid rasta wannabe could get a year’s supply for $5.

        2) People who want it legal are AGAINST super powerful criminal organizations that use contraband money and distribution networks to do all kinds of awful stuff, like import fentanyl, have turf wars, traffic children and pass unconstitutional laws calculated to destroy us all.

        Sorry to bother you with reality. Got a cool story for us, bro?

      • I don’t use the weed, or anyother psychoactive substances. I know plenty who do.
        I support deschduling these substances as Schedule One drugs… simply because they ARE not per the definition of “Schedule One” substances. That classification is an YOOOOOGE lie and must be done away with.
        It would also bring an end to the so-called fake “war on drugs” and the entire federal agency waging this phney and false war. Ten years ago their annual budget was some Bn$65. That ain’t chump change, even in this economy.

    • I’m not really seeing how “making people dangerous” is even an argument that supposedly freedom minded people are willing to entertain.

      The number of things that make people more dangerous is very long and includes, quite frankly, damn near everything.

      Fuck the nanny state. People need to grow a pair and embrace (dangerous) freedom and personal responsibility over the safety of slavery to the state.

  5. Noah S. Sweat – The Whiskey Speech

    “My friends, I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time. However, I
    want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at
    any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about
    whiskey. All right, here is how I feel about whiskey:
    If when you say whiskey you mean the devil’s brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that
    defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally
    takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean the evil drink that topples the Christian
    man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous, gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation,
    and despair, and shame and helplessness, and hopelessness, then certainly I am against it.
    But, if when you say whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale
    that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on
    their lips, and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer; if you mean
    the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old gentleman’s step on a frosty, crispy morning; if you
    mean the drink which enables a man to magnify his joy, and his happiness, and to forget, if only for a
    little while, life’s great tragedies, and heartaches, and sorrows; if you mean that drink, the sale of
    which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars, which are used to provide tender care for
    our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged and infirm; to build highways
    and hospitals and schools, then certainly I am for it.
    This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.”

    Compare to marijuana usage.

    • Noah S. Sweat – The Whiskey Speech

      “My friends, I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time.
      However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take
      a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be.
      You have asked me how I feel about whiskey. All right, here is how I feel about whiskey:
      If when you say whiskey you mean the devil’s brew, the poison scourge, the bloody
      monster, that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery
      and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean
      the evil drink that topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous,
      gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, and despair, and shame and
      helplessness, and hopelessness, then certainly I am against it.

      But, if when you say whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine,
      the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts
      and laughter on their lips, and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean
      Christmas cheer; if you mean the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old
      gentleman’s step on a frosty, crispy morning; if you mean the drink which enables a
      man to magnify his joy, and his happiness, and to forget, if only for a little while, life’s
      great tragedies, and heartaches, and sorrows; if you mean that drink, the sale of which
      pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars, which are used to provide tender
      care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged
      and infirm; to build highways and hospitals and schools, then certainly I am for it.
      This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.”

      Does this read better for you Maxx!

        • No matter how you put it, it still sounds like a typical “insert politicians name” explanation on their “stance” on ANY subject… Call it double speak, flip flop, political rhetoric, pandering or “confuse a cat” does not matter…

  6. What does Rahimi have to do with smoking pot and carrying a gun? The feds will eventually be forced to legalize some form of possession (less than 28 grams?) and use as more states pass “recreational” use, will most likely be on FL ballot again next year and it almost passed last time, FL makes possession of less than 20 grams a misdemeanor with a citation and a small fine, FL has not passed any law making it illegal to be in possession of marijuana (medical or otherwise) and firearm… Previous Sec of Agriculture (responsible for issuing CWP) was both a “medical” marijuana user and had a CWP…

    • “What does Rahimi have to do with smoking pot and carrying a gun?”

      its the governments contention in Rahimi that a person can’t be a danger OR irresponsible. if a person smokes pot, it being illegal under federal law then the person was ‘irresponsible’ because they did not follow the federal law against use of illegal drugs thus are prohibited persons for gun posession.

      of course, SCOTUS is not buying the very broad ‘responsible person’ thing the government is trying to shoe horn into Rahimi. If they did, a person who, for example, pulled a foot beyond the stop sign with the front of the car before stopping would not be a ‘responsible person’ under law and thus a prohibited person for gun rights because the law says, basically, ‘stop at the sign’ and not beyond it. Think about having your constitutional rights removed because you got a traffic ticket because your tail light bulb burned out while driving and you didn’t know it…but none the less under the government broad ‘responsible person’ standard they are trying to bring in in Rahimi that’s exactly what they could do.

    • Gee I got your point. Then again I’m not high🙄😀I don’t do pot or drink but when I did I wasn’t a gat owner. Neither “helped” my life. Peace out. Happy Veterans Day!

  8. Out of all the drugs I’ve ever seen people get fucked up on the one that scares me in terms of mixing it with guns is Ambien.

    • *To be fair, I’m kinda using “Ambien” as a term for several of the “Z-drugs”, kinda like Glock vs Glock-brand Glock.

    • People rely on drugs too much to mask the real issue instead of trying to resolve it. How often do doctors work on resolving the fundamental issue instead of lazily writing a script? If someone needs a crutch for awhile, then why not try generic Benadryl? It’s weird how medical professionals and the pharma industry aren’t blamed for more problems. ($$$)

      • This is certainly true.

        OTOH, the other thing that I’ve come to realize is that the vast, vast, vast majority of people lie to their doctor(s) constantly.

        Makes it hard for the docs to do a lot of what they should in a lot of cases.

        • Complex problems tend to have more and than or in their factors. Then we have the unknown background issues like genetic predispositions with respect to this article. Legal or not it is a mess all around.

        • Ive had my doc lie t me FAR MORE than I ever lied to any of them.
          Educte yourelf and you mostly won’t need a dic. Stay active eat good quality food ad iss the doc goodbye. Oh and taking a few normal type supplements doesn’t hurt.

        • “Ive had my doc lie t me FAR MORE than I ever lied to any of them.”

          Your anecdote is noted for what it is, an anecdote.

          The data is that most people lie, constantly, to their doctor. It’s even more common with dentists.

      • A doctor tried to prescribe me Halcyon for severe recent bone trauma. Never spoke to that arrogant crooked sob again

        • By itself or in combination with something like an NSAID or very low dose codiene?

          Benzos like that are commonly used off-label to increase the effect of painkillers and prevent muscle spasm when serious muscle damage has occurred/may cause further bone or joint damage.

          The adjuvant effect allows them to significantly lower the dose of the painkiller being used but get the same effect while also reducing the chances of making things worse due to a spasm.

          All the GABA-A agonists work in basically the same way, hyperpolarizing neurons to make them less reactive, which can be good in some cases of injury. What we mostly consider to be the “main effect” (hypnotic, inducing sleep) is actually kind of a major side effect but also the main “on label” use for the stuff.

    • Any drug where you can ‘come to’ and have *zero* fucking clue how you got there in the first place is a drug that ought to be highly feared.

      And drugs like Ambien are just such drugs… 🙁

      • That’s not really what freaks me out about some of those drugs, though I understand why people would feel like that, especially if it happened to them.

        It’s having interacted with people who were “sleepwalking” under the effect of the drugs.

        They’re fully functional, physically, but they’re *not home*. They’re absolutely capable of anything they would be sober and awake but they’re *not there*.

        There’s no loss of motor coordination or capacity at all and they can talk to you too in some cases. But there’s no irrationality or rationality it’s like that part of them was just… removed. They just do things in a way I can only describe as “inexorable” and unexplainable, sometimes with objects that are not present and sometimes with those objects present.

  9. When with a granddaughter to a breakfast at her high school yesterday in honor of veterans and it was a great event. Choir sand the National Anthem, Pledge of Allegiance and a bugler played taps.

    Happy Veterans Day everyone.

  10. I don’t know a lot of smokers, let alone a lot of smokers who also have guns. But, one of those smoking gun owners happens to be my kid brother. Not once in the six decades that we have been brothers has he mishandled a firearm. Never has he acted unsafely with a firearm. I know, that is merely an anecdote, or at best a data point. I literally trust his judgement.

    I can sort of maybe understand evaluating a gun owner with marijuana use in mind. Except, the bill of rights didn’t come with a stipulation that people be evaluated before exercising their rights.

    Give everyone their rights, across the board, until and unless they demonstrate that they pose a danger to society. And, “danger” doesn’t mean “He doesn’t use a gun safe that we approve of!” And, it certainly doesn’t mean “He raised his voice to his wife, we need to take his weapons!”

    • I have an old friend of 50 years who likely still gets high. He offered pot to me in 2009. He has a veritable arsenal. Never been violent or shot anyone. Worked as a carpenter for many years & plays in a geezer rock band. I guarantee there’s a legion of old guy’s out there in the same boat🙄

  11. Y’all are looking at this all wrong. The devil’s lettuce is deemed such a nasty drug because it justifies all the War on Drugs ™ tax money grifting. Along with the Patriot Act, villages with only 3k people can have tanks and SWAT teams. If MJ is removed from sched 1 drug list, .gov will have less power over you . . . and NO politician wants that!

    • Certainly part of it as was hemp competing with trees for being a cheap paper product a century ago. Probably a bunch of other similar factors at play but all tend to go back to power and control.

      • one other such “issue” is centred round the good ol E. I. duPont de Nemours company. Du Pont for short.
        Back in the 1920’s they devoped nylin as a fibre, and began making rope (amongst other pruducts: of the stuff. In may ways it was far superior to any other cordage made anywhere. Its one drawback was its stretchiness maing it unsuitable for certain uses.
        Still they decided to get Uncle Stoopud to eradicate the plant from which hemp rope fibre was made. Thus the ban on cannabis, one of the hemp family. DuPont wanted to outlaw the main competition to their new product, hemp. One more instance of government and Big Business getting into bed together.
        Little did anyone ever guess that rope was one of the core factors debarring the use of arms to so many innocents, but there it is.

  12. Cocaine made Black men rape White wemon so the government had to criminalize Marijuana. It’s as simple as that.

  13. Nothing brings put the idiot potheads a rationalizing like talking about how wonderful pot is. Choir sings BS. But just remember that tobacco = instant death

  14. Your nonsense about “potheads” reminds me of dacian’s nonsense about guns. Only more stupid and less sophisticated. As in sophistry-cated…

  15. The drug legalization crowd has never supported freedom. They have never supported liberty.

    They want the government to pay for their drug treatment. They want the government to provide them “free” needles. They want the government to provide them with “free” medical marijuana.

    They want the government to provide them with a “free” government doctor to monitor them. In the “free” government injection centers. So they don’t die of a drug overdose, because they voluntarily put poison into their own bodies.

    The drug legalization crowd has always totally supported gun control. They still do that has not changed. They have publicly stated they want marijuana treated like tobacco. They want it taxed. Because they want the government to make more tax revenue.

    • I don’t think they support gun control as a matter of course. I think it’s just a case of junkies going along with whatever they have to to get their drug. For most users, even recreational ones, the substance they use takes a top three spot in their hierarchy of needs.

      Any user who says otherwise just hasn’t had to choose or hasn’t gone without in a while. Take it away and watch them turn into a completely different person. Manifesting as simple irritability to frantically trying to prostitute oneself for the drug. An angry, irrational, desperate person. Yes, even the recreational users. Weed, meth, coffee, tobacco, alcohol. The consumers are all suffering the same disease. The symptoms are a matter of degree regulated by ease of access.

      • Sigh. Easy access equals no withdrawal. No “…angry, irrational, desperate person…”

        No drug cartels, drug mafias or drug thugs either.

    • cuz yer comment is full of lies and false premises. They had to make sure it wasn’t also full of sedition and government overthrow.

      Can you cite verifiable sources for your many false statements about “supporting gun control, demanding gummit buy drugs for so many, etc etc?

      I know plenty who favour legalisation but I do not know anyone (except my crazy little sister (who is far more confused than any of the dozens of ten to sixteen year old children I know) favouring legalisation who also favours gun restriction.

        • Hey Chris, drugs are not legal in SF, and have not been since about 1905. The zombies are taking illegal black market chemicals that profit illegal producers and distributors, not to mention the folks supposedly tasked with enforcing the law. SF problems are not caused by drug legalization, anymore than welfare queens with multiple children are caused by “legal butt sex” – another of your egregiously dumbass fact-free theories.

        • to xzx
          Your paper argument falls flat. In SF there are many things that are still illegal. And the law is not enforced. In fact the s0ci@list pr0gressive politicians there? are proud to say “we will not enforced the law.”

          But they do certainly have the complete and total political power and SF to repeal those laws.
          But they don’t. Do they???

          Drug use and crime have always gone hand-in-hand. The fact that you want to deny this is not surprising.
          And it’s o k if you don’t want to admit that fact. The drug leg@liz@tion crowd supported proposition 47. It raised what is considered a misdemeanor up to $950.

          That is all the proof an honest logical person really needs. The drug legaliz@tion crowd wants to enable drug use. The honest logical people all know that a drug addict, is incapable of holding down a job. In order to pay for their drug habit.

          And that is why the drug leg@liz@tion crowd wrote, supported, and voted for prop 47. As I have said before, they do not support liberty. Because they do not accept the responsibility and consequences that go with it.

          And they do not believe in the concept of private property rights. They totally supported the rioters in 2020. They totally supported the police being ordered to stand down. They totally supported property being taken from law, abiding citizens. So that drug addicts could use it to pay for their drugs.

          So yes, all these people the only thing they care about. Are legal butt sex and their drugs.

        • to xzx
          I was born and raised in California. So I know all the politics. The names and the dates. What happened. And who did it. I was there when all this BS was in the news.

          btw
          The laws against having sex in public are not enforced in SF. But the laws against having “gloryhole sex” between consenting adults, on your private property are enforced.

      • I am not going to participate in your attempt at moving the goal posts.
        What I stated has been the the stated positions of the drug legalization crowd. Since the 1970s as I watch them as a teenager.

        “If we could just leg@lize pot, there would be no need for the black drug dealers to have guns.”

        “And all the crime would go away.”

        Now you go educate yourself and dig through the archives. And find out which ones and how many people in the legaliz@tion crowd said this stupid and racist sh!t.

      • “I know plenty who favour legalisation but I do not know anyone (except my crazy little sister (who is far more confused than any of the dozens of ten to sixteen year old children I know) favouring legalisation who also favours gun restriction.”

        While its federally outlawed and a federal law crime, all people who favor legalization of pot (or other drugs) in a state are either knowingly or unknowingly favoring gun restriction simply, at its basics, because federally the possession/use/manufacture/supply/transport makes one a felon and ‘prohibited person’ for gun ownership/possession thus ‘gun restriction’.

        If pot is legalized in a state, that does not mean its legal under federal law and in fact it remains a federal crime, a felony, under federal law to possess/use/manufacture/supply/transport. Basically, the only reason the federal government does not prosecute it in states where its legalized, unless it involves gun possession or another federal crime or on federal property in the state), is because of an agreement many years ago between the DOJ and California and that agreement was eventually applied by the DOJ as a policy to not enforce but it does not mean it is not a crime federally and only means the DOJ doesn’t enforce it (unless it involves gun possession or another federal crime or on federal property in the state).

        • “all people who favor legalization of pot (or other drugs) in a state are either knowingly or unknowingly favoring gun restriction”

          That’s hilarious. And 100% credibility-free.

        • to xzx
          In s0ci@list pr0gressive SF if you are caught with drugs and a gun? You will be arrested and charged with a gun crime.

          And the drug leg@liz@tion crowd is very comfortable with that.

  17. Well, having been in L.E. for almost 30 years, I would rather deal with drunks than pot heads. Chronic (pun intended) marijuana users can and are extremely violent. It is a fallacy that they are docile people. Proven fact that heavy adolescent use of marijuana caused mental issues such as schizophrenia in late teens and early 20’s. They are irrational and engage in self risk activities. There is a reason truck drivers and airline pilots are tested for marijuana use.
    Personally, I could care less if you want to use pot. Go ahead but stop telling people it is a “Safe” drug. Is pot safer than alcohol?, OK, yes, but not without negative life effects.

    • Basically, you are claiming that you would rather work with a drunk than a weed head.

      I doubt that that is true, although it is possible that you believe your own bs…

    • Of all the potheads and drunks ive come across in my 46 yrs on this earth, I’d much rather hang out with the potheads. The potheads i knew were most likely to veg out in front of a tv or stereo for hours on end, rarely wanting to venture out into the world.

    • Drug Prohibition is an attempt by progressives to destroy the Bill of Rights. It’s working, too.

      Sullivan Act, 1912

      Harrison Act, 1914

      Followed by no-knock warrants, warrantless surveillance, gun registration, gun bans, “civil forfeiture” (AKA theft), red flag laws, state/local/federal corruption, entire countries taken over by drug organizations and more. All the stuff commies love.

      Just say no in Mexico, and your mom will get to watch you star in a snuff flick.

      • Not enforcing marijuana laws in Mexico has made marijuana de facto legal.
        Just as marijuana is defacto legal in the state of california. Because the laws against it there are also not enforced.

        But having it legal has not stopped the mexican gangsters from threatening to murder, and then take over the american pot growers farms.

        And the mexicans gangsters are doing a fine job of taking over by using force, the legal avocado farming business.

        • It ain’t legal. If it was legal, it would sell for $5/lb. And the illegal money made on the wildly inflated prices of contraband is what generates the muscle to take over the avocado growers…

  19. Worth a read — if you have an open mind.

    “Over the last 30 years, psychiatrists and epidemiologists have turned speculation about marijuana’s dangers into science. Yet over the same period, a shrewd and expensive lobbying campaign has pushed public attitudes about marijuana the other way. And the effects are now becoming apparent.

    “Almost everything you think you know about the health effects of cannabis, almost everything advocates and the media have told you for a generation, is wrong. …

    “After an exhaustive review, the National Academy of Medicine found in 2017 that “cannabis use is likely to increase the risk of developing schizophrenia and other psychoses; the higher the use, the greater the risk.” Also that “regular cannabis use is likely to increase the risk for developing social anxiety disorder.” ”
    — https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/marijuana-mental-illness-violence/

    • Wait till they do caffeine, failien, then you will REALLY FREAK RIGHT OUT!!!!! PEOPLE WHO DRINK COFFEE ACTUALLY DIE!!!!! 100%!!!!!!!!!!!!

      GHAAAAAAGK!!!

      • If you did read the article, it was wasted on you.

        You didn’t meet the prerequisite of having an open mind.

        • Open mind is not a synonym for gullible, and I don’t waste time with obvious junk. And that is what metastudies are. Junk. Ditto “reviews”.

          I PROVE that roundup causes cancer with a metastudy – after countless actual scientific studies fail.

          Or show a correlation between drinking milk and becoming a serial killer…

          Go lobby the ignorant.

        • And I don’t waste time with obvious junk. Ditto “reviews”.

          I PROVE that roundup causes cancer with a metastudy – after countless actual scientific studies fail.

          Or show a correlation between drinking milk and becoming a serial killer…

          Lobby the ignorant.

        • “Open mind does is not a synonym for gullible.”

          Quite correct.

          Philosopher William Hare: “open-mindedness is an intellectual virtue that reveals itself in a willingness to form and revise our ideas in the light of a critical review of evidence and argument that strives to meet the elusive ideals of objectivity and impartiality.”

          But you do you. I wouldn’t encourage you to do anything else.

    • Also that “regular cannabis use is likely to increase the risk for developing social anxiety disorder.” ”

      Same with “Social” Media…

  20. IT is an irrefutable FACT that the smoking of MARAJUANA does lead to some very serious MENTAL PROBLEMS mainly ANXIETY SYDROME in abiolity to CONCENTRATE, poor DESCISION MAKING and PARANOIA and the earlier it is started the more the likelyhood of those mental Problems.
    My Daughter-in-Law has just retired fro being a COMMUNITY PSYCHIATRIC nurse and tells me that at least HALF of her younger patiets those from around 20 to 40 started the Marajuana habit in their early teens .

  22. Just my opinion on this. Drop the prohibitions on any and all narcotics. But, we must hold people accountable for their actions, or lack of while under the influence of whatever substance they use. Want to burn a pound or pot? Or shoot up with whatever? Your choice and you must deal with whatever the effects of the use of the poison of choice are.
    Neither I nor society in general can’t stop someone from using/ingesting whatever. We can and should hold people responsible for any criminal acts done to secure/support the habit, or crimes/actions while under the influence. And, unless and until you are under court order for some crime, you should not lose any of your rights.

    • Agree in principle.

      Government monopoly (nonprofit) for chemicals of real concern, informed consenting adults only (21+). User agrees to reasonable conditions – eg, no night driving (or whatever). Violation of conditions, immediate detox.

      Feral distribution or production, burnt at stake (or whatever). Feral use, 10 lashes (or whatever).

      Take about a year for the cartel lifestyle to disappear. Cost of chemical around 1$/day/user. 5x that for distribution and delivery. Absolutely no room for contraband profits. Think about how pissed FARQ would be – their cash cow destroyed by leftwing economic mechanisms.

      Let the sober rule.

  23. I’ve been smoking for decades and I can say I never ever once met a violent smoker, yes a violent asshole that sold it sure but we’re talking about smoking. now honestly it does not help my pain but it does help me sleep through it and its the only reason I even have an appetite. also my guns have never hurt anyone and neither have I 😁
    people that don’t understand or poison themselves with alcohol have no business talking down about a plant that requires nothing from humans to grow. 🖕

    oh I also live in FL and Nikki is the best!

Comments are closed.