Posted on 01/22/2014 2:24:27 AM PST by Libloather
Patients who want to qualify for medical marijuana in Illinois would have to be fingerprinted for a background check and pay $150 a year — and give up their right to own a gun, state officials proposed Tuesday.
The plan outlines how adults who have any of 41 specified medical conditions, such as cancer, AIDS or complex regional pain syndrome, may apply to get a patient registry identification card to purchase medical pot.
The proposed rules are the first in a series of parameters expected to be outlined over the course of the year to govern how medical marijuana can be legally grown, sold and purchased. The Illinois Department of Public Health will take public comment on this set of rules until Feb. 7 and then submit them to a legislative panel for approval by the end of April.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
So, in order to get treated for a medical condition, one has to get a permit, pay $150 to the government (who is not part of the treatment), and then submit to fingerprinting and turning in your weapons?
I guess these Illinois people don’t read the newspaper. Especially the item about the President saying marijuana was no worse than alcohol. What’s next? Have to have a license to buy alcohol, give up your right to own a gun?
Have you ever tried smoking trans fats?
I watched a very close friend go through chemo hell while being treated for colon cancer. Pot was the best relief he could get from side effects. It wasn’t his idea and he didn’t go to it willingly, but it worked. It takes a special kind of asshole to conceive of tying relief to a constitutional right. Think of it as a bureaucrat showing up at a house fire and holding back the firefighters until you give up your right to vote.
I’m not in any way a fan of marijuana, but I am disgusted by those using it as yet another lever to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
The DEA was a willing participant in Fast and Furious, and they knew it was being done to manufacture evidence that would be used to justify more gun control regulations.
This is yet another example of just how important our 2nd amendment rights are - not just to us, but to the people out there salivating over finding any excuse to deny us that right. You have to ask yourself, just why is it so important, so vital, that as many of us as possible (apparently preferably in their eyes that all of us) be denied that right and disarmed? This has gone well beyond isolated instances of “oh that’s just stupid” in regards to gun control to “wait a minute, why is this such a common theme in so many discordant places and issues?” I don’t generally go in for conspiracy theories, but this does seem like gun control is being pushed from many many quarters.
The federal gun control act of 1968 denies those addicted to marijuana or narcotics the ability to purchase firearms. This takes it a step further and grabs existing firearms. Note that ill-annoy already requires a license to even own a handgun (foid).
In states such as Illinois that have FOIDs (Firearm Owner's ID Card,) they can revoke those cards if they so choose and you lose your legal ability to possess firearms in that state.
This is why it’s so important to get pot rescheduled, or repeal 18 USC 922. Federal law prohibits possession of guns by “unlawful user[s] ... of any controlled substance.” Pot is schedule I and thus there is no lawful use under federal law.
Rescheduled?! By what authority did the Fed. create these laws? By what authority does the Fed. get to determine ‘lawful use’?
Disappointing to see such clap-trap on a ‘Conservative’ board.
The law is what it is regardless of the kind of usurpation and Constitution-shredding that brought the law to that point, and pointing out the simple reality of the law is not “clap-trap.”
Federal agents with machine guns, grenades, and concrete cages fervently believe that they DO have the authority to determine “lawful use,” Constitution be damned, and anyone who ignores that fact does so at their own peril.
The DEA’s own Administrative Law Judge ruled 25 years ago that marijuana should be removed from Schedule I. He was promptly ignored.
The did the same thing to Robert Shafer.
From 1972 no less. There was one other Federal commission earlier that recommended decrim/legalization as well. They kept getting an answer they didn’t want, so they finally stopped asking the question. Which is why the States had to step in.
NOT pointing out the illegality/Unconstitutional nature of any ‘law’ (let alone fighting the same) is the reason the Republic is DEAD.
What other areas of the Constitution have you the same mind-set? Abortion? Anti-gun? Welfare? ACA? They are all ‘law’, are they not?
‘Just following orders’...Yeah, I know how that works out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.