My guns or my ganja?

[STFU]

Back at it again...PA this time:
My guns or my ganja? Firearm-owning pot fans face a choice - ABC News

Hahaha, he has a point: "I don't know of any time anyone's been using marijuana and going out and committing acts of violence with a gun. Most of the time they just sit on their couch and eat pizza."

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Hahaha, he has a point: "I don't know of any time anyone's been using marijuana and going out and committing acts of violence with a gun. Most of the time they just sit on their couch and eat pizza."

His ignorance of it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I know of lots of times. Of course not every user is violent..but they aren't all chill suburban kids playing CoD, either.

Most violence has at least one of D's...Domestics, Dope, Dumb----s.

 

[Cameramonkey]

His ignorance of it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I know of lots of times. Of course not every user is violent..but they aren't all chill suburban kids playing CoD, either.

Most violence has at least one of D's...Domestics, Dope, Dumb----s.

And although I have been around it many times but just didnt choose to partake (just not my thing), I know there is no single strain of weed and its effects are not universal. Weed isnt weed, isnt weed, isnt weed. Much like there are many types of apples, tomatoes, peppers, etc. there are many types of weed. Some makes you mellow, some gives you a euphoric high, some makes you paranoid, etc. Several of those strains can be used for positive benefit. Chemo killed your appetite? x strain of weed can increase your appetite. PTSD got you down and you cant relax? Another strain can reduce anxiety and help you become a productive member of society. Another strain can help reduce chronic pain.

I really wish that nuance could make it freely into the public discussion of legalization without hindrance of the antis 'Reefer Madness' BS. I say if you arent hurting anyone else, and it helps you as a patient, you should have access to it.

And dont get me started on the gross negligence of its schedule. Even if it isnt legalized for recreational use, it MUST be rescheduled as it doesnt fit the definition. It is currently a schedule 1, as a substance with zero health benefits. (along with meth, coke, etc) Scientific studies have shown it actually does have some positive results under certain controlled conditions; that alone should cause it to be rescheduled even if it isnt outright legalized federally. Dont want to legalize it? At least reschedule it appropriately. (3 or below, ideally a 5)

But back to BBI's point, even if it doesnt make you violent, it can at least reduce your inhibitions to the point that if you are a s**tty person, you are more likely to act on your illegal tendencies. But then again, so can alcohol, but we dont see a move to outlaw that...

 

[HEADKNOCKER]

Alcohol & opioids are far worse IMO & are totally legal.. Go Figure

I also note that Mr. Gruver's marijuana card was issued on Christmas day

I'm sure he like Clinton didn't inhale either or partake

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Hahaha, he has a point: "I don't know of any time anyone's been using marijuana and going out and committing acts of violence with a gun. Most of the time they just sit on their couch and eat pizza."

Even the clothing months later at trial smells like weed.

Not been in a robbery where there wasn't weed consumed before it.

I am for the legalization of marijuana, but I despise the weed culture and everything about it.

Most violence has at least one of D's...Domestics, Dope, Dumb----s.

In the top 5 of great insights of INGO.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

"I don't know of any time anyone's been using marijuana and going out and committing acts of violence with a gun. Most of the time they just sit on their couch and eat pizza."

Maybe spend more time studying or hang out in the courthouse for a day?

 

[MarkC]

Maybe spend more time studying or hang out in the courthouse for a day?

Weed may not be causative, but there certainly seems to be a correlation. As noted above, not all the dope smokers are suburban kids (or their parents) smoking a bowl or two or five and eating pizza.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Weed may not be causative, but there certainly seems to be a correlation. As noted above, not all the dope smokers are suburban kids (or their parents) smoking a bowl or two or five and eating pizza.

Correlation in violent crime; causative in probation violations, CHINS and TPRs.

 

[MarkC]

Correlation in violent crime; causative in probation violations, CHINS and TPRs.

Good point, as for causation. I was at a meeting last week with Marion County offender re-entry managers, and they stated that more than half of the parole failures in Marion County are for "technical" violations of the terms of release; only about 47% are recommitted for reoffending. However, arguably, a failed drug screen is a violation of the terms and a new crime, although such is almost never charged in Marion County.

 

[edporch]

I'd worry more about a big drinker getting drunk and aggressive, then shooting the place up.
Through the years I've had and seen much more trouble from big drinkers than potheads.

 

[Bill of Rights]

...
Even if it isnt legalized for recreational use, it MUST be rescheduled as it doesnt fit the definition. It is currently a schedule 1, as a substance with zero health benefits. (along with meth, coke, etc) Scientific studies have shown it actually does have some positive results under certain controlled conditions; that alone should cause it to be rescheduled even if it isnt outright legalized federally. Dont want to legalize it? At least reschedule it appropriately. (3 or below, ideally a 5)
...

Of note, cocaine is a Schedule II. It does have medical use. I've been present when a doc administered it for a procedure.

 

[Squirt239]

I guess I'm of the opinion that what would happen if this was Vicodin? Or insulin? Or an Epi-pen? You're going to restrict my RIGHTS because I am taking a prescribed medication?

I don't have a dog in the fight. I don't partake, nor could I being in public safety; even if it WAS legal. Explain that, by the way...

With the proven medicinal nature of the product, I am strongly in favor to the legalization. I'm not in favor of regulation...less government is better, IMO.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Insulin and epi are not "mind altering", however vicodin is, being a narcotic. The former two (as I ordered them in this post) can save a life. I can think of few, and I mean very few, times when a narcotic, used by the patient him/herself, can save a life. Reduce pain, yes, and make someone's life less hellish, but as a former coworker of mine used to say, "Nobody ever died from pain." (I admit, I don't know if that quote is true or not.)

Additionally, the question on the 4473 is:

e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or
decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.

and if you use vicodin regularly, you are addicted to it.

so in short, yes, they will and do restrict your rights because you are taking a prescribed medication.

This totally ignores the concept that I have to have a permission slip to buy a medication to help me, when I know fully well how to use that medication and wouldn't have to call a doc at 3AM and ask pretty please his permission to go buy an antibiotic for a kid's ear infection that he's had many times before. And just because it's a good idea to keep the doc involved for follow up doesn't mean it should be law. It's a good idea to tip your servers, too, but the places that it happens, I'd wager that both tip amounts and service both take a nosedive.

Oh, and you COULD use that if it was decriminalized, even being in public safety, but just like alcohol, could not be using it or under the influence while on duty. And the present test for being a user would have to be improved, I agree. Personally, I would choose not to use it just as I choose not to drink alcohol or use tobacco.

Blessings,
Bill

I guess I'm of the opinion that what would happen if this was Vicodin? Or insulin? Or an Epi-pen? You're going to restrict my RIGHTS because I am taking a prescribed medication?

I don't have a dog in the fight. I don't partake, nor could I being in public safety; even if it WAS legal. Explain that, by the way...

With the proven medicinal nature of the product, I am strongly in favor to the legalization. I'm not in favor of regulation...less government is better, IMO.

 

[Squirt239]

Insulin and epi are not "mind altering", however vicodin is, being a narcotic. The former two (as I ordered them in this post) can save a life. I can think of few, and I mean very few, times when a narcotic, used by the patient him/herself, can save a life. Reduce pain, yes, and make someone's life less hellish, but as a former coworker of mine used to say, "Nobody ever died from pain." (I admit, I don't know if that quote is true or not.)

Additionally, the question on the 4473 is:

e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or
decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.

and if you use vicodin regularly, you are addicted to it.

so in short, yes, they will and do restrict your rights because you are taking a prescribed medication.

This totally ignores the concept that I have to have a permission slip to buy a medication to help me, when I know fully well how to use that medication and wouldn't have to call a doc at 3AM and ask pretty please his permission to go buy an antibiotic for a kid's ear infection that he's had many times before. And just because it's a good idea to keep the doc involved for follow up doesn't mean it should be law. It's a good idea to tip your servers, too, but the places that it happens, I'd wager that both tip amounts and service both take a nosedive.

Oh, and you COULD use that if it was decriminalized, even being in public safety, but just like alcohol, could not be using it or under the influence while on duty. And the present test for being a user would have to be improved, I agree. Personally, I would choose not to use it just as I choose not to drink alcohol or use tobacco.

Blessings,
Bill

I believe my point was too vague...

Where does one draw the line with medications and not being able to possess a firearm? What about anti depressants? What about anti anxiety medications? What about sleep medications?

I think the whole thing is a big bunch of malarky. Technical term...look it up ;-)

 

[Bill of Rights]

Perhaps the the line is correctly drawn at the violation of some other law, causing actual harm to an actual person.

i say “perhaps”, very intentionally, because I believe in the 2A as written, while also seeing the outcomes I think we’d all like to prevent, such as the person overusing meds that muddle his/her mind firing that gun indiscriminately. Not sure there’s a place in there for a law about that, though, as no law exists that prevents the crime.

An argument could be made in re: profiling as well. Just because someone takes meds, is it right to say they have a propensity toward irrational and/or violent behavior?

Malarky: (n)

Got it.

Blessings,
Bill

I believe my point was too vague...

Where does one draw the line with medications and not being able to possess a firearm? What about anti depressants? What about anti anxiety medications? What about sleep medications?

I think the whole thing is a big bunch of malarky. Technical term...look it up ;-)

 

[seedubs1]

There's already laws against going out and firing a gun indiscriminately. Stop trying to babysit and use nanny state laws. I don't care the cause of the crime.....prosecute the crime itself.....and crime should be defined as an act resulting in a victim. No victim.....no crime.

Perhaps the the line is correctly drawn at the violation of some other law, causing actual harm to an actual person.

i say “perhaps”, very intentionally, because I believe in the 2A as written, while also seeing the outcomes I think we’d all like to prevent, such as the person overusing meds that muddle his/her mind firing that gun indiscriminately. Not sure there’s a place in there for a law about that, though, as no law exists that prevents the crime.

An argument could be made in re: profiling as well. Just because someone takes meds, is it right to say they have a propensity toward irrational and/or violent behavior?

Malarky: (n)

Got it.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[HoughMade]

Of note, cocaine is a Schedule II. It does have medical use. I've been present when a doc administered it for a procedure.

Cocaine is an excellent topical anesthetic with the added bonus of being a vaso-constrictor = less bleeding in things like sinus surgery and the like.

 

[indiucky]

Cocaine is an excellent topical anesthetic with the added bonus of being a vaso-constrictor = less bleeding in things like sinus surgery and the like.

Someone once told me they were taking a train ride in Peru heading up to see Machu Pichu IIRC....As the train neared the Andes a porter came down the aisle with a basket of coca leaves to pass out to the passengers for them to chew.....It is said to alleviate altitude sickness......

He said he couldn't get The Grateful Dead tune Casey Jones out of his mind....

 

[Bill of Rights]

There's already laws against going out and firing a gun indiscriminately. Stop trying to babysit and use nanny state laws. I don't care the cause of the crime.....prosecute the crime itself.....and crime should be defined as an act resulting in a victim. No victim.....no crime.

I *did* include a disclaimer. And correct me if I'm mistaken, but if your loved one is there and the perp could have been prevented from injuring or killing them, would you not prefer that to buying and filling a casket for burial? More so when the perps usually off themselves, so not only have you lost someone you loved, you also have neither closure nor vengeance.

Understand, I am an ardent libertarian and I am an originalist as well. (I didn't just choose this screen name as a pun on my "real world" name. ) What I've laid out above is the thinking behind the opposite position. This world, as you surely know, is rarely composed of things that are 100% good and 100% bad/evil. Example: While Chucky Schumer is a gun-banning hypocrite, I can't hold the same level of contempt I hold for him, against Suzie Soccermom, who is anti gun because she's been fed several lines of and because she's worried about her children. She's still wrong, but she can be taught and shown that helplessness and victimhood do not save her children, while accurate return fire might.

If I know that someone is truly out of their gourd and embracing or advancing thoughts that are acted upon that will cause harm to innocents... that is, the person has motive (however questionable) and means (a gun with ammo and the known ability to use it effectively, ) and I have the ability to stop them before they find opportunity to use the latter to appease the former, am I not at least partially, if not equally guilty when there are victims to be autopsied, if I do nothing to stop it?

What I said was that I'd LIKE to prevent that outcome, HOWEVER, I don't know that the way to do so is by passing laws. Laws allow action to be taken, but they also allow for misuse and the targeting of innocents for prosecution. The answer, like the question, is far from easy. It is multifaceted, and each "face" must be considered, IMHO.

Do you have a better means in mind for "prevention", given the goal above of no coffins needing filled?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Drail]

Someone please tell me again under what authority does the Federal Govt. make pot illegal?