Skip to comments.Get a Medical Marijuana Card, Lose Your Second Amendment Rights
Posted on 12/20/2011 6:30:01 PM PST by neverdem
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives wants to prohibit patients from protecting themselves.
If you are a medical marijuana patient in one of the 16 states (plus the District of Columbia) that allow for it, youve got reason to believe lately that the government has it in for you.
Youve got federal raids on the places where you can conveniently buy your medicine, the governor of Arizona trying to overturn in court her citizens choice to institute a medical marijuana system, and Michigans attorney general trying to make life as hard as he can for those using the system his states voters approved by 63 percent in 2008. And while it isnt directly the governments fault, doctors are taking people off liver transplant waiting lists for using medical pot.
It isnt just that the government on both the federal and state level doesnt want you to be able to legally and conveniently obtain your medicine, if that medicine is pot. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) insists you inherently lose a key constitutional right merely by letting your state know you might want to take pot medicinally.
Merely having a state medical marijuana card, BATFE insists, means that you fall afoul of Sect. 922(g) of the federal criminal code (from the 1968 federal Gun Control Act), which says that anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance is basically barred from possessing or receiving guns or ammo (with the bogus assertion that such possession implicates interstate commerce, which courts will pretty much always claim it does).
Nevada licenses medical pot users. Rowan Wilson, a Carson City-area woman who works as a medical technician in residential care homes, believes pot might be useful for her painful menstrual cramps. After going through
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
0bama and Democrats in general are far too socialist and Tyrannical, this being apparent long before the 2008 election occurred.
Any so-called libertarian who would vote for such a blatant authoritarian collectivist is no libertarian at all...
Shouting at your spouse can get your 2A rights wiped out.
Same if you ever get any psychological counseling. They’re using that one with a lot of ex-military.
Our state once had a chief medical examiner who simply made shit up to ensure convictions. His paid testimony sent hundreds to prison and many convictions were overturned years later when it was found that he didn’t have a college degree and had not even performed the tests that he used to convict people.
These bureaucrats just nailed some company for putting on their water bottle that it prevents dehydration (making it a drug).
Of course they want to get everyone and everything on ridiculous technicalities. They let the real abusers free. They may actually be sticking up for them. You little peons though, no, they will clampy down on you and crush you with every technicality they can find.
I hate stoners. I hater more the batf.
Somehow I just know that Antonin Scalia will figure out a way to justifiably rule against Obamacare. Don’t you worry about it.
You’re worried about that, when about 40 percent of everyone driving around you is high on some type of concocted big pharma drugs.
A big percentage of people over 65 are strung out on pharmaceutical pain killers, medications etc, with many ingesting multiple pain killers and medications as a matter of routine. It’s what made big pharma worth hundreds of billions.
...the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.
J. Scalia concurring in Raich
She don't even have to show them a bruise...Just a slight red mark will do....And they'll throw you in a cage, and strip your rights away...You're done!
Total 100 percent control.
Go big gov!
Fence in a piece of land two miles on each side. Triple fence with motion sensors, center one electrified, cameras and only one gate. all those sentenced to life without parole get to go in but do not come out. When they go in they are handed a back pack with garden seeds and a few hand tools and told to plant quick if they want to eat. No guards inside the fence. The inmates must police themselves.
Bet you lay awake at night wondering why the Founders ever even bothered creating things called "States," eh?
How annoying for you, when with one smoooooth federal overlay, things could be put right once and for all - eh?
Definitely. Wait’ll she hits menopause. She’ll demand oxycontin.
We would need several tiers of prisons for that. One with the rehabilitative ones and stagger it up to the completely violent and hopeless cases. The ones who have absolutely no respect for anything.
The ones that are small time, one time crooks could clean up the mess from the others so they could see their futures if they didn’t shape up.
Still liking the yellow jumpsuit idea. Make’em think about their impending demise.
>These bureaucrats just nailed some company for putting on their water bottle that it prevents dehydration (making it a drug).
I would strongly fight that. In fact, I’d bring a dictionary and read the definition of ‘dehydration’ and then mock the prosecution relentlessly.
(Also I’m pretty sure I could use 18 USC 242 to counter-attack.)
>Of course they want to get everyone and everything on ridiculous technicalities. They let the real abusers free. They may actually be sticking up for them. You little peons though, no, they will clampy down on you and crush you with every technicality they can find.
I’ve heard that Obamacare makes it a felony to not have ‘qualifying’ healthcare. Laying aside the issue that ‘qualifying’ can whimsically be changed, I’m fairly sure there is no exemption/mercy for those who have a break-in-coverage say from changing policies or (considering the economy) unemployment.
Therefore, I can only surmise that there will be a LOT of felons come 2014 when Obamacare comes into effect; and at that point there will be lots of otherwise law-abiding citizens which will be denied their right to keep and bear arms.
You must not be a fan of the Tenth Amendment.
Immaterial. See post #3. My personal feelings one way or the other do not enter into the matter.
Tell you what: I am certain enough that Scalia will rule against Obamacare in March that I am willing to make a serious bet with you. Unfortunately, since I have a policy of anonymity on this website, due to past experiences with psychos, it can not be a monetary wager.
How does this sound? If Scalia upholds the appellate decision, I will voluntarily suspend my account for a month. If he does not, you will do likewise.
I am not at all certain how Scalia will vote. He sold out his originalist principles in Raich, so it would not be that big a deal to go against his own opinion in that case.
Keep in mind that two of his protoges did uphold Obamacare based on his opinion in Raich. I simply advised you not to bet your lunch money. You're free to ignore my advice.
In fact, I do. But that opinion is not germane to the discussion of how the Fed abuses, or does not abuse, the 10th.
My original post was sarcasm and aimed at the fact that the prescribing of medical marijuana is very much abused. Those who use the substance should expect problems when trying to apply or maintain an LTC. Right or wrong, like it or not, that's the way it is.
Federal anti-gun laws are based on the same expansive view of the Commerce Clause that makes national marijuana prohibition possible, so it is indeed germane.
I quoted from Scalia's opinion in Raich upthread on this page. Here's a quote from Thomas on the same case. Which of the two got it right, in your opinion?
Thomas: Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything, and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
J. Thomas, dissenting in Raich
I really think you’re onto something there. Send Sheriff Joe of Maricopa Cty AZ your plan. Of course, the pink uniforms might clash with the yellow one
I really think you’re onto something there. Send Sheriff Joe of Maricopa Cty AZ your plan. Of course, the pink uniforms might clash with the yellow one
And yet some 'constitutional conservatives' cheer federal drug laws. Go figure.
It seemed to me that your point was that Scalia might not rule against Obamacare because of this. I think that is ridiculous. Did you have another point?
Which Scalia will overturn. You have no point.
You simply cannot deny that he gave full throated endorsement to the expansive view of the Commerce Clause, upon which federal control of health care depends.
Thomas gets it right, obviously.
Better reason to just end the war on Americans by our government.
There's no way in hell a rational, sane, small (l) libertarian could vote for Obama. From the very first time Obama's name hit the national consciousness, anyone with half a brain in his skull could peg him as a statist, and statism flies in the face of small (l) libertarianism.
However, when I see a thread like this where some FReepers are all too willing to forget the basic conservative principles about the Constitution just because they dont like those damned hippies, it really saddens me.
Rights are rights, and when it comes to the big ones, like self-defense, we dont derive them from the government, so there is no legitimate action the government can do to take them away. Any action that deprives us of such a right is by default an illegitimate use of government power. We cant let ourselves forget that due to our subjective feelings, or we are no better than liberals.
Been fighting the Drug Warriors here on FR since '99, and I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Prescriptions are not required for Herbal remedies. Medical Marijuana is legal by prescription only. The FDA regulates all drugs that are "prescribed" to treat illness or disease. Only Doctors (MDs) can prescribe treatments and the whole process is regulated by the FDA. You can buy herbal remedies over the counter and on the internet.
What point were you trying to make about my argument?
Won't that kind of take the fun out of gloating for the winner? Just sayin...
Yes, but we both know that marijuana is only being prescribed in a backdoor attempt at legalization. There’s nothing to distinguish it from other things classed as “herbal remedies”, not even its psychoactive nature. If the government was being consistent, the FDA wouldn’t have any authority over it at all. That’s why your argument about it needing to be tested with the same stringency as synthetic drugs is silly.
Marijuana is prescribed because it has medically beneficial properties. "Scientists have confirmed that the cannabis plant contains active ingredients with therapeutic potential for relieving pain, controlling nausea, stimulating appetite, and decreasing ocular pressure." - http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html
No argument here. Why isn't it regulated by the FDA? If it were, every single species, strand, phylum would have to go thru it's own set of trials. The means of planting, cultivating, nurturing, watering, fertilizing, harvesting, thatching, drying, sterilizing, testing, measuring, packaging, shipping and marketing would all be under tight FDA scrutiny. There would be truck loads of documentation establishing quality controls and consistencies and then validating that all those procedures were met for every .10 of an ounce that was produced and sent to market. In this way, as with all other prescribed medications, if something was bad or didn't work as it was advertised, the source of the problem could be effectively tracked, traced, corrected and liability assigned. Now, explain to me again why, if you live in California, you can grow pot (or import it) and sell it to anyone with a prescription without any medical, pharmacuetical or even sales training or experience. (I do know there is some paperwork involved). You know the reason. It's smoke and mirrors to make cannibus more accessible for the recreational user. There is no doubt it has some certain medicinal uses. But so does asprin. Indians supposedly figured some of it's potential out and chewed on bark to get the affect in the 1700s. The FDA is more concerned about asprin than cannibus? Don't be naive even if you do use. Be intellectually honest here.
No argument here. Why isn't it regulated by the FDA? [...] explain to me again why, if you live in California, you can grow pot (or import it) and sell it to anyone with a prescription without any medical, pharmacuetical or even sales training or experience.
Intrastate commerce is none of the feds' business. (As for genuinely interstate commerce in medical marijuana, since it's unpatentable it should qualify as an 'orphan drug.')
What we have now is law set up to be subverted. It is a mockery of all that is justice. The most criminal part is legislation was passed with the intended purpose of allowing people to violate it by avoiding enforcement. THAT'S THE CRIME!
What other laws should we ignore, subvert or scoff at? Gun control legislation? Immigration laws? Taxes?
Check out #91.
I've never used and am totally apathetic about the legality. I'll teach my kids not to touch it or steroids, or cocaine etc. I care more about the principles and respect for that which our nation holds (or is suppose to) sacred, The Rule of Law. We are eroding it with ridiculous legislation all the time.
The supreme law of the land grants the federal government no authority over intrastate commerce. Whatever the right answer to CA's winking at violations of CA law may be, federal involvement ain't it.
Methamphetamine is FDA approved for the treatment of ADHD and exogenous obesity. It is dispensed in the USA under the trademark name Desoxyn.
Before you say, there is a law against producing it because it....safe...blow up...yadda, yadda, yadda...consider; In the same jurisdictions where "medicinal use of cannibus" is legal under the supervision and prescription of a doctor, it is illegal to grow marijuana for the purpose of distribution. State law, not federal law.
Any way you cut it, at the federal level or state level, the law is a joke. If you think that pot is not imported for sale and distribution in California from out of state, you are goofy. If it is being imported for consumer use, guess what. It's now interstate commerce, kinda like corn (remember the farmers). The state starts the farce. The Federal State DOJ rightfully stays out of it.
But the overspending, over-regulating FDA sticks it's nose in everything from vitamins to ecoli. Why not pot?
I appreciate the civility of this lively debate. Only intellectual conservatives can converse at this level. :o)
In case duty calls and I have to return to work, you and yours have a very Merry (herbal) Christmas. Lol.
An excellent question. That should also be the state's business.
In the same jurisdictions where "medicinal use of cannibus" is legal under the supervision and prescription of a doctor, it is illegal to grow marijuana for the purpose of distribution. State law, not federal law.
Any way you cut it, at the federal level or state level, the law is a joke.
Why is it a "joke" for a state to say substance X is legal by prescription only?
If you think that pot is not imported for sale and distribution in California from out of state
I'm sure it is - and the feds have legitimate authority over that interstate commerce. But the existence of that interstate commerce in pot gives them no constitutional authority regarding intrastate commerce in pot.
you and yours have a very Merry (herbal) Christmas.
No herb for me - but Merry Christmas to you too!
“What other laws should we ignore, subvert or scoff at? Gun control legislation? Immigration laws? Taxes?”
Well, for the first one at least, yes. Those aren’t legitimate laws. Of course, scoff at your own risk.
“Marijuana is prescribed because it has medically beneficial properties.”
Yes, sure, it has about 2 properties that are beneficial and not easily replicated by other drugs. However, the vast majority of “medical marijuana” users don’t have medical issues that require those unique properties, they just want to get high. If you believe otherwise, you’re kidding yourself.
Yes, sure, it has about 2 properties that are beneficial and not easily replicated by other drugs.
Medicine is not one size fits all. The more different medications are available for any given condition, the better.
However, the vast majority of medical marijuana users dont have medical issues that require those unique properties, they just want to get high.
Why should that worry me? Anyone who wants can get a legal nonprescription buzz on at their nearest tavern.
I looked at some of your links the day you posted them, but have been off due to the holidays. I thank you for bringing my attention to that horrible scam by that vile man, and everyone in the corrupt circle who never took the time or had the inclination to check his history or care about justice enough to ensure it was being served.
Not to be preachy, but, I’d like to hope that someone like that is able to repent and come to Christ. I try and hope for that, because I know that God is forgiving, and loving beyond my ability to comprehend, and I know we’re judged by what judgement we judge. I think if it were up to me (to dole out punishments), that I would have a special place reserved for those that imprison others for personal gain. Fortunately, I’m not in charge of the hereafter, and I’m hoping that somehow, someday all those wrongs committed on those innocent will be made right. There’s nothing in this life that can make up for what was stolen from them, nor adequately repay (punish) this man, and that is terrible.
All the same, Merry Christmas, to you and yours, and may God bless you and keep you well in the upcoming New Year.
I didn’t say it should worry you. The comment wasn’t addressed to you and I don’t think you are following the conversation.