From personal I-witness acounts, which is not scientific evidence, I have seen more SOBER people do stupid crap with guns, than drunks and stoned people combined.......TIMES 10!
I don't recall ever seeing a STONED person do anything stupid with a gun......I have seen quite a few drunks do stupid crap.
I have also seen STONED people STOP drunk people from doing stupid crap with guns.
AZ: ATF says no guns to legal medical marijuana patients
27 posts • Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Re: AZ: ATF says no guns to legal medical marijuana patients
by tweener on Sun Oct 02, 2011 1:26 am
Never mind the typos. My keyboard is full of beer, crumbs and Dr. Peper........and .........the typo and grammer police can go to........HE..!.....no...wait a minute......California!
Re: AZ: ATF says no guns to legal medical marijuana patients
by crbutler on Sun Oct 02, 2011 8:34 pm
Re: AZ: ATF says no guns to legal medical marijuana patients
Postby Edward on Sun Oct 02, 2011 12:12 am
crbutler wrote:Legal alcohol use is a larger problem than illegal cannabis consumption. Sure, because the numbers are huge in comparison. ... However, if we legalized cannabis, it would likely make alcohol look like a walk in the park.
No. If the percentage of the population that drinks was equal in size to the fraction that smokes pot, the harm caused from alcohol use would still far exceed the harm caused by cannabis use.
Here is a reputable, minimally biased, peer reviewed meta-study produced by a panel of experts which finds alcohol use is over four times more damaging to society, and more than twice as damaging to the individual user, than marijuana use. This paper is a more precise and thorough follow up to this one which was performed three years earlier by the same group, with similar, though less disparate, findings.
I think you should look at your source before claiming a minimally biased peer reviewed study. The group quoted is a virtual who's who of non government policy types in the UK. There is also a surprisingly strong number of folks who work for Big Pharma in that group. Surprisingly, alcoholism is one of the few substance abuse areas with a lot of pharmaceutical research and sales in attempting to ameliorate it. (sarcasm intended) There have been a number of statements about alcohol being worse than pot. You have not proved that yet- the studies you mentioned were all discussions of hospital visits, and they was no comment on just marijuana, just in combination with various things. It seems that per US DHHS the number currently using alcohol is between 60-70%. depending on age. According to NIMH, the percentage currently using cannabis is 4%. And really quoting the studies for either of us is fairly rediculous as one can find studies from such a "unbiased source" like NORML, or likewise there are several religious groups that have published (and claim to be peer reviewed) with similarly predictable results.
crbutler wrote:The point about clearing is that you clear about 1 oz of alcohol from your system in an hour. There is no definitive time frame for how long it takes for the cannaboids to be washed out of your system, and given their propensity to concentrate in lipid substances like the brain, they are very variable in how long they take to stop affecting a person. You can test positive for them over 60 days after use. In my experience, some folks take up to 6-9 months before they resolve their psychosis after long term use of marijuana.
The clearing of the psychosis is the thing I am pointing out here, not the cannaboid metabolites, in other words, some folks have residual effects from marijuana despite clearing all the metabolic markers we can measure. The patients usually test negative within a month, although you can see some positive tests out to 60-90 days. I can't begin to recall how many positive drug tests I got from folks who said "but I've been clean for over a month!" Some must have been telling the truth, after all they knew they would be tested....
The fact that you can test positive - that is to say, carry metabolic byproducts specific to the drug in question - doesn't mean that you're still under the effects of that drug. It means that you've used it at some point in the recent past. Alcohol metabolites can be detected in the human body for several weeks after one has stopped drinking, even if it was only an isolated incident. Source. Source. Are you still drunk a week after a night out on the town? Additionally, the window for detection of pot use is probably not nearly as large as you claim, and to achieve detection 60 days out would require an extremely chronic user. Source. Source.
Again your sources are weak. The data you quoted are medical lab tests that I order every day that may be abnormal in the presence of chronic alcoholism. The breathalyser measures ethyl alcohol directly and there is no corresponding test for marijuana, much less a test that could be used as a screen in the sense that the breathalyzer is. Currently the "best test" for levels of canniboids is gas chromatography, which is very operator dependent to get an accurate quantitiative results (the usual tests that are run in a drug test are qualititive, ie it's there or its not.)
crbutler wrote:For example, unlike with alcohol where you can do a breath test and determine if someone has alcohol concentrations that are strongly correlated to actual incapacity, there is no way to measure a "sub intoxicating dose" of cannaboids vs. a "safe but present level" if there is such a thing.
You think so?
To be blunt, your attitude strikes me as misinformed and wholly irrational. If you want to hold that anyone who smokes pot should not be allowed to own guns, that's your right. I don't agree, but I understand that position, and you are definitely entitled to your opinion. But it's ridiculously inconsistent to make the arguments you've presented against marijuana, then turn around and say they don't also apply to alcohol. I doubt that either one of us will convince the other, and I'm tired of internet arguing (I never thought I would ever have cause to say that...) so I'll let it go.
Actually, I'm doing this in the hope that I might convince some folks that the "legalization" schemes will have some VERY unintended consequences. As for the comparison with alcohol, you really are the camp that is doing that. I am pretty pragmatic about it. Alcohol was attempted to be banned in the 20's-30's with prohibition, and it was a spectacular failure. Like other major changes in society, once the genie is out of the bottle, its impossible to get it back in. I will point out that the same questions on the ATF form apply to alcohol as well as marijuana, but in any case, I freely admit that the legal availability of alcohol has had a horrible social cost in this country. So? I know that we will never ban it again, even if MADD is doing its best to do so without actually banning it. As to "misinformed and wholly irrational" I am a physician who works with these populations on a daily basis, unlike the ex bouncer or the guys who hang out with the potheads who stop the drunks from doing something irrational with a gun. Legally, I am an "Expert," so I guess until you start putting up bona fides, and do some Dr. Phil online analysis, I can safely assure you I am neither misinformed or irrational. Its irrational to point out that we can't determine who is "under the influence" of marijuana scientifically in a manner that would be useful to society at large (ie immediately with a scale as to how impaired the individual is) as opposed to statistically? Part of why this is disjointed is that I could write a book's worth of material on this, but I don't think anyone wants to read it, much less do I want to write it and get all the citations together.
I am open to good scientific arguments about the effect of cannabis on people, but quite frankly, it seems that everyone here is operating on an anecdotal basis, or picking some limited studies that agree with their baseline beliefs. Unfortunately, as I know that, I can't exclude myself here either, but my experience is such that while a drunk may be "more" belligerent, the pothead will likely kill someone too, it just might be at a slightly lower rate. Stopping something that is bad is not wrong even if I can't stop something worse. (like helping the wounded in a war is an obligation, even though it would be less moral than stopping the war on the basis of its killing of people.) As an example, when I give someone a narcotic, it says that you should not drive or use dangerous machinery on the label, and I counsel folks on that as well. Should I not, since some (actually none so far) of them won't hurt anyone????
Now, if you are trying to say what the constitution actually literally says, there may be a point to that, but since FDR, and maybe before that, the constitution means what the majority in this country say it means. (Living document and all that...) Cases in point- internment of the Japanese, SSDI, the various firearms laws, the list can go on. I think that "We the People" are not ready to allow folks with provable alteration in their mental status to have firearms (the basis of this being common law, not constitutional law) and what is more, the feds seem to be saying that in general international law should be allowed as precident, which would put impaired actors at an even higher level of limitation than it currently is. What's more, I think that people arguing that addicts being allowed to own guns is likely to color the majority against gun owners and reverse some of the very hard fought gains that firearms owners won by being obviously more reasonable than the opposition.
jgalt wrote:And yes, I understand the feds still consider it to be illegal to smoke pot - but this is an area in which they have long been overstepping their constitutional authority. A few states have rightfully started to challenge this on federalism / 10th Amendment grounds and I am still optimistic enough about this country to hold out hope that at least 5 of our 9 'philosopher kings' will recognize & correct this. I guess I'm one of those nutters who has not yet given up on the quaint notion that the words of the Constitution actually mean something...
And our "Philosopher Kings" have not overturned any of these laws yet, have they? For that matter its still illegal here in MN (its still a misdemeanor at least...). As was said elsewhere, in AZ gun ownership and carry are the same thing, so the reason for the perhaps unwarranted mixing of carry and purchase. When the MN or SCOTUS says drug use is not a justifiable reason for restriction of firearms possession, then the whole line of comment becomes moot, and I will quietly go hide under my rock. Until then, its the law, and at least in my personal opinion, a reasonable one at that.
Postby Edward on Sun Oct 02, 2011 12:12 am
crbutler wrote:Legal alcohol use is a larger problem than illegal cannabis consumption. Sure, because the numbers are huge in comparison. ... However, if we legalized cannabis, it would likely make alcohol look like a walk in the park.
No. If the percentage of the population that drinks was equal in size to the fraction that smokes pot, the harm caused from alcohol use would still far exceed the harm caused by cannabis use.
Here is a reputable, minimally biased, peer reviewed meta-study produced by a panel of experts which finds alcohol use is over four times more damaging to society, and more than twice as damaging to the individual user, than marijuana use. This paper is a more precise and thorough follow up to this one which was performed three years earlier by the same group, with similar, though less disparate, findings.
I think you should look at your source before claiming a minimally biased peer reviewed study. The group quoted is a virtual who's who of non government policy types in the UK. There is also a surprisingly strong number of folks who work for Big Pharma in that group. Surprisingly, alcoholism is one of the few substance abuse areas with a lot of pharmaceutical research and sales in attempting to ameliorate it. (sarcasm intended) There have been a number of statements about alcohol being worse than pot. You have not proved that yet- the studies you mentioned were all discussions of hospital visits, and they was no comment on just marijuana, just in combination with various things. It seems that per US DHHS the number currently using alcohol is between 60-70%. depending on age. According to NIMH, the percentage currently using cannabis is 4%. And really quoting the studies for either of us is fairly rediculous as one can find studies from such a "unbiased source" like NORML, or likewise there are several religious groups that have published (and claim to be peer reviewed) with similarly predictable results.
crbutler wrote:The point about clearing is that you clear about 1 oz of alcohol from your system in an hour. There is no definitive time frame for how long it takes for the cannaboids to be washed out of your system, and given their propensity to concentrate in lipid substances like the brain, they are very variable in how long they take to stop affecting a person. You can test positive for them over 60 days after use. In my experience, some folks take up to 6-9 months before they resolve their psychosis after long term use of marijuana.
The clearing of the psychosis is the thing I am pointing out here, not the cannaboid metabolites, in other words, some folks have residual effects from marijuana despite clearing all the metabolic markers we can measure. The patients usually test negative within a month, although you can see some positive tests out to 60-90 days. I can't begin to recall how many positive drug tests I got from folks who said "but I've been clean for over a month!" Some must have been telling the truth, after all they knew they would be tested....
The fact that you can test positive - that is to say, carry metabolic byproducts specific to the drug in question - doesn't mean that you're still under the effects of that drug. It means that you've used it at some point in the recent past. Alcohol metabolites can be detected in the human body for several weeks after one has stopped drinking, even if it was only an isolated incident. Source. Source. Are you still drunk a week after a night out on the town? Additionally, the window for detection of pot use is probably not nearly as large as you claim, and to achieve detection 60 days out would require an extremely chronic user. Source. Source.
Again your sources are weak. The data you quoted are medical lab tests that I order every day that may be abnormal in the presence of chronic alcoholism. The breathalyser measures ethyl alcohol directly and there is no corresponding test for marijuana, much less a test that could be used as a screen in the sense that the breathalyzer is. Currently the "best test" for levels of canniboids is gas chromatography, which is very operator dependent to get an accurate quantitiative results (the usual tests that are run in a drug test are qualititive, ie it's there or its not.)
crbutler wrote:For example, unlike with alcohol where you can do a breath test and determine if someone has alcohol concentrations that are strongly correlated to actual incapacity, there is no way to measure a "sub intoxicating dose" of cannaboids vs. a "safe but present level" if there is such a thing.
You think so?
To be blunt, your attitude strikes me as misinformed and wholly irrational. If you want to hold that anyone who smokes pot should not be allowed to own guns, that's your right. I don't agree, but I understand that position, and you are definitely entitled to your opinion. But it's ridiculously inconsistent to make the arguments you've presented against marijuana, then turn around and say they don't also apply to alcohol. I doubt that either one of us will convince the other, and I'm tired of internet arguing (I never thought I would ever have cause to say that...) so I'll let it go.
Actually, I'm doing this in the hope that I might convince some folks that the "legalization" schemes will have some VERY unintended consequences. As for the comparison with alcohol, you really are the camp that is doing that. I am pretty pragmatic about it. Alcohol was attempted to be banned in the 20's-30's with prohibition, and it was a spectacular failure. Like other major changes in society, once the genie is out of the bottle, its impossible to get it back in. I will point out that the same questions on the ATF form apply to alcohol as well as marijuana, but in any case, I freely admit that the legal availability of alcohol has had a horrible social cost in this country. So? I know that we will never ban it again, even if MADD is doing its best to do so without actually banning it. As to "misinformed and wholly irrational" I am a physician who works with these populations on a daily basis, unlike the ex bouncer or the guys who hang out with the potheads who stop the drunks from doing something irrational with a gun. Legally, I am an "Expert," so I guess until you start putting up bona fides, and do some Dr. Phil online analysis, I can safely assure you I am neither misinformed or irrational. Its irrational to point out that we can't determine who is "under the influence" of marijuana scientifically in a manner that would be useful to society at large (ie immediately with a scale as to how impaired the individual is) as opposed to statistically? Part of why this is disjointed is that I could write a book's worth of material on this, but I don't think anyone wants to read it, much less do I want to write it and get all the citations together.
I am open to good scientific arguments about the effect of cannabis on people, but quite frankly, it seems that everyone here is operating on an anecdotal basis, or picking some limited studies that agree with their baseline beliefs. Unfortunately, as I know that, I can't exclude myself here either, but my experience is such that while a drunk may be "more" belligerent, the pothead will likely kill someone too, it just might be at a slightly lower rate. Stopping something that is bad is not wrong even if I can't stop something worse. (like helping the wounded in a war is an obligation, even though it would be less moral than stopping the war on the basis of its killing of people.) As an example, when I give someone a narcotic, it says that you should not drive or use dangerous machinery on the label, and I counsel folks on that as well. Should I not, since some (actually none so far) of them won't hurt anyone????
Now, if you are trying to say what the constitution actually literally says, there may be a point to that, but since FDR, and maybe before that, the constitution means what the majority in this country say it means. (Living document and all that...) Cases in point- internment of the Japanese, SSDI, the various firearms laws, the list can go on. I think that "We the People" are not ready to allow folks with provable alteration in their mental status to have firearms (the basis of this being common law, not constitutional law) and what is more, the feds seem to be saying that in general international law should be allowed as precident, which would put impaired actors at an even higher level of limitation than it currently is. What's more, I think that people arguing that addicts being allowed to own guns is likely to color the majority against gun owners and reverse some of the very hard fought gains that firearms owners won by being obviously more reasonable than the opposition.
jgalt wrote:And yes, I understand the feds still consider it to be illegal to smoke pot - but this is an area in which they have long been overstepping their constitutional authority. A few states have rightfully started to challenge this on federalism / 10th Amendment grounds and I am still optimistic enough about this country to hold out hope that at least 5 of our 9 'philosopher kings' will recognize & correct this. I guess I'm one of those nutters who has not yet given up on the quaint notion that the words of the Constitution actually mean something...
And our "Philosopher Kings" have not overturned any of these laws yet, have they? For that matter its still illegal here in MN (its still a misdemeanor at least...). As was said elsewhere, in AZ gun ownership and carry are the same thing, so the reason for the perhaps unwarranted mixing of carry and purchase. When the MN or SCOTUS says drug use is not a justifiable reason for restriction of firearms possession, then the whole line of comment becomes moot, and I will quietly go hide under my rock. Until then, its the law, and at least in my personal opinion, a reasonable one at that.
Re: AZ: ATF says no guns to legal medical marijuana patients
by 1911fan on Sun Oct 02, 2011 8:48 pm
At some point a catch 22 exists which violates the Fifth amendment protections against self incrimination
Re: AZ: ATF says no guns to legal medical marijuana patients
by jgalt on Sun Oct 02, 2011 8:59 pm
crbutler wrote:
A bunch of stuff that ignores the main flaw in his argument...
Re: AZ: ATF says no guns to legal medical marijuana patients
by Snowgun on Sun Oct 02, 2011 9:15 pm
jgalt wrote:crbutler wrote:
A bunch of stuff that ignores the main flaw in his argument...
Jgalt, for usually being pretty respectful and logical in your discussions, this is a pretty petty post...
I think that crbutler is primarily discussion a tangent with edward, which though it doesn't EXACTLY fit with your news story, is pretty important as a discussion nonetheless.
Here is the crux of the issue:
Alcohol is a legal drug. Alcohol's effects are relatively rapidly cleared to analytical precision based on body mass, and most importantly, laws have been enacted to deal with those carrying guns under the influence with very specific metrics. In comparison, MJ has a grey legal status, it has less than adequate scientific literature detailing all of it's side effects with precision, and it has a long term difficult to gauge clearance rate.
While I agree that the ability to purchase vs carry is a very big difference in the discussion, the fact that the users in question have a card that essentually is so they can be under the influence 24/7 is different than your occasional toker....what if I had a medical Alcohol card that allows me to be buzzed all the time to deal with my "pain". How dare you judge my ability to have/carry a firearm!!
(Just something to think about...
)Victory is reserved for those who are willing to pay its price. - Sun Tzu
The Way is in training... Do nothing which is not of value. - Miyamato Musashi
One who knows the Self puts death to death. - Upanishads
The Way is in training... Do nothing which is not of value. - Miyamato Musashi
One who knows the Self puts death to death. - Upanishads
-
Snowgun - Events Coordinator
- Posts: 3368 [View]
- Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:06 pm
- Location: Watching my CZ Catch the Sunlight!
Re: AZ: ATF says no guns to legal medical marijuana patients
by jgalt on Sun Oct 02, 2011 9:41 pm
Snowgun wrote:Jgalt, for usually being pretty respectful and logical in your discussions, this is a pretty petty post...
Yeah, I probably could have waited a couple minutes before hitting "submit" - & I do much more often than not. I know he was responding mostly to points made by others, but he did add one quote of mine at the end. That he chose to make that one quote of mine a portion of my response which had very little to do with my main point irked me a bit, so I didn't wait...
The "blah blah blah" was due to the argument over dueling studies, which is rarely persuasive to anyone who doesn't already agree with one side or the other. Had I waited I likely wouldn't have posted it - but now that you've quoted me I can't even be contrite & get rid of it...
Re: AZ: ATF says no guns to legal medical marijuana patients
by crbutler on Sun Oct 02, 2011 11:09 pm
The point on the dueling studies was why I don't bother quoting them in this issue. The point was Edward kept quoting studies (and chapters of a textbook that he didn't quite vet) that are really, as we both have admitted, meaningless to this discussion.
As to missing your point, I'm not sure how?
The business about prior restraint? We practice prior restraint in many ways. Drive a car? have to pass certain "requirements" Buy a gun? Again, the SCOTUS has said that requirements are allowed- they just didn't enumerate what they feel are acceptable, but they did say that arbitrary statement of "no" was not acceptable. I look at medical marijuana as being addicted. Whether its "legal" or not is besides the point, and what is more, you have a government issued card saying so (that you are a habitual user- if you are not, you don't rate the card...) What ATF in my mind just did was state that the states which allow medical MJ must submit this data to the NICS system. Being a regular user of MJ to the ATF is a disqualifier.
As to whether or not a preexisting propensity to do something is disqualifying, that is a grey area. Quarantines are placed on people who have not done anything or have no signs of illness based on being in the wrong place at the wrong time- although they admittedly let these folks out reasonably quickly. Personally, if I thought I would have a good risk of slipping into psychosis by utilizing a substance that I required for maintaining my quality of life (to take the medical MJ users at their word) I would get rid of my firearms. I prefer to look at it as responsibilities. If you are an active addict, you should not be buying a gun. Unfortunately, it seems many addicts don't think this applies to them, and then we get the imperfect route of permits/certification.
In this case, I presume the ATF decided that the various risks associated with MJ use warranted its exclusion as a public good.
Do you really want another Loughner running around because of Medical MJ and getting the rest of us to lose the PR battle because you want to let a very small minority make a very dubious decision? I know no one wants that, and I think that is something that is very much in the minds of the citizens of AZ. The ATF is feeling the heat that there have been "many" folks who have gotten guns that should not have lately.
In essence, what we have here is a fundamental issue of libertarianism vs. the governed's desire to have government remove as many risks as they can. I can see the risks that these folks hold, and I think most of the rest of us can too. I can see the libertarian's point that until they actually do something we have to wait, but given the sheer numbers of people in this country now, and the relatively small number of people you are "infringing" on, I personally feel the risks outweigh the inconvenience. Does that answer your point more precisely? I thought this was somewhat implied.
You know what, I've had enough of being called ignorant, misguided, and an all around %^$^&$#. Finis.
As to missing your point, I'm not sure how?
The business about prior restraint? We practice prior restraint in many ways. Drive a car? have to pass certain "requirements" Buy a gun? Again, the SCOTUS has said that requirements are allowed- they just didn't enumerate what they feel are acceptable, but they did say that arbitrary statement of "no" was not acceptable. I look at medical marijuana as being addicted. Whether its "legal" or not is besides the point, and what is more, you have a government issued card saying so (that you are a habitual user- if you are not, you don't rate the card...) What ATF in my mind just did was state that the states which allow medical MJ must submit this data to the NICS system. Being a regular user of MJ to the ATF is a disqualifier.
As to whether or not a preexisting propensity to do something is disqualifying, that is a grey area. Quarantines are placed on people who have not done anything or have no signs of illness based on being in the wrong place at the wrong time- although they admittedly let these folks out reasonably quickly. Personally, if I thought I would have a good risk of slipping into psychosis by utilizing a substance that I required for maintaining my quality of life (to take the medical MJ users at their word) I would get rid of my firearms. I prefer to look at it as responsibilities. If you are an active addict, you should not be buying a gun. Unfortunately, it seems many addicts don't think this applies to them, and then we get the imperfect route of permits/certification.
In this case, I presume the ATF decided that the various risks associated with MJ use warranted its exclusion as a public good.
Do you really want another Loughner running around because of Medical MJ and getting the rest of us to lose the PR battle because you want to let a very small minority make a very dubious decision? I know no one wants that, and I think that is something that is very much in the minds of the citizens of AZ. The ATF is feeling the heat that there have been "many" folks who have gotten guns that should not have lately.
In essence, what we have here is a fundamental issue of libertarianism vs. the governed's desire to have government remove as many risks as they can. I can see the risks that these folks hold, and I think most of the rest of us can too. I can see the libertarian's point that until they actually do something we have to wait, but given the sheer numbers of people in this country now, and the relatively small number of people you are "infringing" on, I personally feel the risks outweigh the inconvenience. Does that answer your point more precisely? I thought this was somewhat implied.
You know what, I've had enough of being called ignorant, misguided, and an all around %^$^&$#. Finis.
Re: AZ: ATF says no guns to legal medical marijuana patients
by Stradawhovious on Mon Oct 03, 2011 6:05 am
This is the dumbest thing I've have ever heard (the OP).
Someone declined the right to own a firearm for doing something wholly legal, regardless of people's personal beliefs on the subject of the reefer.
This Country Needs an Enema.
Someone declined the right to own a firearm for doing something wholly legal, regardless of people's personal beliefs on the subject of the reefer.
This Country Needs an Enema.
If you're reading this, there are better than even odds you are a d-bag.
-
Stradawhovious - Posts: 11868 [View]
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 9:39 pm
- Location: South Mpls.
Re: AZ: ATF says no guns to legal medical marijuana patients
by jgalt on Mon Oct 03, 2011 8:03 am
crbutler,
Since you're "finis" on this topic, I'll just respond to your last line:
Do I think you're ignorant? Based on both your posts in this thread & elsewhere, absolutely not. If anything I said came off that way it was certainly not my intent.
Misguided - absolutely.
Did I believe you're "an all around %^$^&$#", or anything close to it? Not even remotely, and on this point I truly am sorry if anything I said came off that way.
We clearly disagree, and I clearly believe you are dead wrong, but that is because you are starting from the wrong premise. This is not a character flaw, it is simply an error in knowledge which can be corrected. If I have time later maybe I'll try to explain why your premise is wrong as I believe the issue at the crux of a large number of the issues we face. But please, don't take anything I have said, or will say on this topic as a personal attack because, well, it simply isn't. My vigorous attack on the message is not an attack on the messenger, and again, I apologize if it came off that way.
Since you're "finis" on this topic, I'll just respond to your last line:
Do I think you're ignorant? Based on both your posts in this thread & elsewhere, absolutely not. If anything I said came off that way it was certainly not my intent.
Misguided - absolutely.
Did I believe you're "an all around %^$^&$#", or anything close to it? Not even remotely, and on this point I truly am sorry if anything I said came off that way.
We clearly disagree, and I clearly believe you are dead wrong, but that is because you are starting from the wrong premise. This is not a character flaw, it is simply an error in knowledge which can be corrected. If I have time later maybe I'll try to explain why your premise is wrong as I believe the issue at the crux of a large number of the issues we face. But please, don't take anything I have said, or will say on this topic as a personal attack because, well, it simply isn't. My vigorous attack on the message is not an attack on the messenger, and again, I apologize if it came off that way.
Re: AZ: ATF says no guns to legal medical marijuana patients
by Collector1337420 on Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:31 pm
I totally disagree with this.
Yet more government intrusion into our lives.
Marijuana is on par with alcohol; alcohol is actually probably worse. I base this not only off my anecdotal experiences, but also everything I've ever read or learned in college.
What happened to freedom in this country?
Now we have to choose which rights we want to keep?
What a tragedy.
Yet more government intrusion into our lives.
Marijuana is on par with alcohol; alcohol is actually probably worse. I base this not only off my anecdotal experiences, but also everything I've ever read or learned in college.
What happened to freedom in this country?
Now we have to choose which rights we want to keep?
What a tragedy.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
- Collector1337420
- Posts: 399 [View]
- Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:18 pm
- Location: Inver Grove Heights
Re: AZ: ATF says no guns to legal medical marijuana patients
by LarryP on Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:32 am
Why even tell them you have a medical card for pot?
Re: AZ: ATF says no guns to legal medical marijuana patients
by Norsesmithy on Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:34 pm
LarryP wrote:Why even tell them you have a medical card for pot?
"Lying on this form is prosecutable as perjury (or something in that line)"
Checking "No" for "Have you used marijuana in the last 6 months" (or whatever the precise wording on the form actually is) is technically a felony.
- Norsesmithy
- Posts: 1359 [View]
- Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:16 pm
- Location: By Delano
27 posts • Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests