AZ: ATF says no guns to legal medical marijuana patients

[jgalt]

ATF Tells Gun Dealers They Can't Sell to Medical Marijuana Patients

While some citizens may have won the right to use medical marijuana, winning one right may come at the expense of another.

In a letter to firearms dealers across the country, federal authorities are being clear that firearms should not be sold to medical marijuana users.

The Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agency (ATF) is sending a letter to gun dealers warning them it is illegal to sell the weapons to people who admit smoking medical marijuana and have a medical marijuana card -- something the card holders are unimpressed about.

"I'm a medical marijuana patient and I own a gun," says Arizona resident Sunny Singh, who fears his right to carry a firearm will be affected.

Read more...

Discuss...

[monschman]

Dear Government,
Leave me alone.
Yours Sincerely,
Munchie

[chudrockz]

If we can elect Ron Paul President, he'll do everything in his power to eliminate the ATF as the unconstitutional monstrosity that it is. No other Republican candidate would even SAY they'd do such a thing (and if they did, they'd just be lying anyhow!)

[crbutler]

In principle I have no problem with someone making their own decision as to "what substance" they wish to put in their body. The problem is that when your substance use affects others. We as a society have decided that rare, intermittent use may not fall to the level of infringing on someone's civil liberties, but chronic use does. Most drugs other than alchohol are quite variable in their ability to clear from a person's system. And I have yet to meet a pot head who doesn't think it is OK to use regardless of the situation...including those who are locked up because they get psychotic on it.

Marijuana is known to be associated with an increase in psychosis. Not every time, but statistically it is a fact.

It would seem to me that if you are going to use something that can cause you to become psychotic and no longer responsible for your actions, you should not use something that can cause someone else's rights to become permanently lost, ie dead.

The argument that you will be punished to compensate for their loss does them a fat lot of good, and in any case if you are psychotic, you are not responsible (a catch -22).

Whether or not it is enforceable in the sense of a casual user being preempted for buying a gun via the instant check, they did violate a federal law (perjury on the purchase paperwork) as if you are a habitual user (a la medical marijuana) you must answer that question as "yes" and they cannot sell to you. Coincidentally the same should apply to chronic narcotics or other mood altering drugs, such as ritalin (which is just medically prescribed amphetamine).

If you really think that your right to use and shoot preempts my right to free association and self preservation (ie to not be exposed to your drug modified behavior while in possession of a gun) then you have just invalidated your whole "rights" argument.

[jgalt]

In principle I have no problem with someone making their own decision as to "what substance" they wish to put in their body. The problem is that when your substance use affects others. We as a society have decided that rare, intermittent use may not fall to the level of infringing on someone's civil liberties, but chronic use does. Most drugs other than alchohol are quite variable in their ability to clear from a person's system. And I have yet to meet a pot head who doesn't think it is OK to use regardless of the situation...including those who are locked up because they get psychotic on it.

Marijuana is known to be associated with an increase in psychosis. Not every time, but statistically it is a fact.

Well, being human is known to be associated with occasionally becoming 'not right in the head', due to ingestion of both legal & illegal substances, illness, disease, heredity, etc. Not all the time, but statistically it is a fact.

By your reasoning, because it can & does happen to some people some of the time, no people should ever be allowed to buy guns. I'm quite sure that is not what you meant, but as it is in fact what you said, would you like to try again...?

Also note - the 4473 asks "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana..." Since the ATF is referring to legally sanctioned medical marijuana users, and it is difficult to prove addiction to it (and most would not admit to addiction even if they are), someone with a medical marijuana card could honestly answer "no" and not be breaking any laws...

[tweener]

yea...not cool....

maybe they should issue B cards to all gun owners too, so they can't ever buy alcohol.

[crbutler]

No I didn't.

I think that any habitual user of MJ has no business using a firearm. Sorry. None.

I tried to explain why I feel that way, but on this one, I support the ATF.

[Edward]

The problem is that when your substance use affects others. ...
Most drugs other than alchohol are quite variable in their ability to clear from a person's system. ...
I have yet to meet a pot head who doesn't think it is OK to use regardless of the situation ...
Marijuana is known to be associated with an increase in psychosis. Not every time, but statistically it is a fact.

I think that any habitual user of MJ has no business using a firearm. Sorry. None.

Alcohol use has been shown to have considerably higher societal costs than marijuana use.
I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "variable in their ability to clear from a person's system", but I don't see how you can reasonably claim that alcohol's effects don't vary among different people.
I have yet to meet an alcoholic who doesn't think it is OK to drink regardless of the situation.
Alcohol is known to cause psychosis. Not in everyone, but medically, it is a fact.

All the reasons you cite for not letting marijuana users buy guns can be applied at least as appropriately to alcohol users, so you ought also to hold that no habitual consumer of alcohol should be allowed to possess firearms. Do you?

You're saying it is OK with you for the ATF to bar gun dealers from selling a legal product to an American citizen simply because they are engaging in a legal activity?

Since the ATF is referring to legally sanctioned medical marijuana users, and it is difficult to prove addiction to it (and most would not admit to addiction even if they are), someone with a medical marijuana card could honestly answer "no" and not be breaking any laws...

The BATF isn't barring dealers from selling to medical marijuana users, nor is it referring to legally sanctioned users. Medical marijuana use isn't a legal activity. Form 4473 asks not just whether someone is addicted to, but also if they are an unlawful user of, any controlled substance. If you currently smoke pot in this country, you cannot truthfully answer "no" to this question. It's against federal law, federal law preempts state law, and the BATF is sending out letters reminding FFL holders of these facts.

As far as I know - and as far as the article you linked reports - gun shops aren't being audited or raided to enforce this. I disagree with a lot of what the BATF does, and with how widely the interstate commerce clause is applied, but I don't think this is anything worth getting worked up over. A reminder to dealers - the vast majority of whom, in my experience, are prudently scrupulous about following the law - in pot friendly states that it (both smoking dope and selling firearms to users of illegal drugs) is against federal law seems eminently reasonable. Would you rather they started aggressively auditing, without warning, every shop in those states and arresting any licensee that sold a firearm to a medical marijuana user?

[crbutler]

Legal alcohol use is a larger problem than illegal cannabis consumption. Sure, because the numbers are huge in comparison.

I have met many alcoholics who admit their problems with it, and try and justify their behavior because its "legal" even though they know that excuse doesn't work legally. They are addicts, and are trying to put the best face on it. They don't try and BS you that they are not a hazard when drunk. Potheads seem to think that there are no issues with them when they are all lit up. Look at all the justifying arguments that it ain't so bad.

However, if we legalized cannabis, it would likely make alcohol look like a walk in the park.

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. 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.

If you want to debate the meaning of addicted, we can do that as well. I believe the wording is addicted or habitual user of ..... This includes prescribed medications. If you are going in to withdrawal, you are addicted. Anything that the government has given a "schedule" to is considered to be addictive/mind altering. If you are an alcoholic, same thing. Lets face it, anyone who is taking a bunch of oxycodone should not be carrying a gun in public either.

Now, the feds are not likely to raid a gun shop because they sold a gun to a guy with a medical MJ card. But, if you ever get in a shooting, legal or not, and they find out that you have it, you just brought yourself a felony, especially since if you are using medical cannabis you WILL test positive. You brought that gun illegally. You lied on the form. You can say all you want that the MJ was legal, they will take the view that you are addicted to a mind altering substance and that is it. My suspicion is that the real point of this is to force the states to place anyone who gets a medical MJ card on the fail the instant check list.

Really, I don't want the ATF to have to police this. If you are a pothead, recreational user, or "medically disabled and require marijuana" you know you are and should not buy or possess a gun. Simple taking responsibility for your behavior. Unfortunately, a lot of folks can't understand this and society has to make some rules. It may be that my view is not the common societal factor and the average man on the street sees no issue with a stoned man having a loaded gun, and they will through the legislature pass laws allowing it.

I won't hold my breath waiting for them to legalize "stoner carry" though.

[jgalt]

Did you actually read the article? This is about the ability of someone who is doing something that is legal in the state of AZ being barred from purchasing a firearm. This is not about carrying one... All your prattle about not wanting to run into someone suffering from marijuana induced psychosis who is carrying a gun is irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion - unless you are in the habit of randomly walking into the houses of people with medical marijuana cards...

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...

Technical point - the partial quote in my response above is taken directly from the form 4473 - the "long term use" portion comes after any mention of marijuana and therefore does not refer to marijuana. The only concerns marijuana users have, based on the wording of the 4473 are "unlawful user" and "addicted"...

You also continue to ignore the point made above that psychosis - and any number of other mental or physical conditions that might cause an individual to be unworthy of handling firearms in your view - can have a wide array of causes, some of which have nothing to do with any chosen behaviors. You are advocating that a particular class of people be barred from exercising a constitutional right because there is a chance that they may at some undetermined point in time in the future no longer be fit to handle a firearm. This could happen to anyone at some undetermined point in the future, so your line of reasoning disqualifies everyone from purchasing a firearm. Do you not see this?

Regarding the "whole 'rights' argument" you ended your first response with - you've misidentified the rights in question. Each individual - even medical marijuana users - have an absolute right to self defense. The ability to use a firearm in furtherance of this right, with only a very limited number of exceptions, is protected both in the Constitution and in the common law. Your "right to not be exposed to ... drug modified behavior while in possession of a gun) doesn't exist. You of course have a right to self defense should someone with "drug modified behavior" - or any other type of behavior that puts you in immanent danger of great bodily harm or death - threaten you, and you have the right to pursue legal remedies after you've been harmed by someone, regardless of the cause. That's it.

Your desire not to be around those who are mentally unstable, and who are dangerous because of that instability, is (I would guess) shared by many, if not most people. Your willingness to grant the government the power to restrict access to firearms for people who are only potentially in that category is dangerous to your own liberty, for the reason given above. If it were just your own liberty you were giving up I'd label your position as unwise, but you are also demanding I give up some portion of my liberty as well in order to provide you with the illusion of safety - that is something which will never be acceptable to me....

[goalie]

When I worked as a bouncer, I noticed that people who were stoned would leave you alone unless you tried to stop them from going through the Taco Bell drive-through. Drunks, on the other hand.... Let's just say that I noticed a lot of people who should have a warning label tattooed on their forehead that says "Instant *******, just add alcohol"

Years later, I noticed the exact same thing working in an emergency room.

[EAJuggalo]

jgalt, in AZ anyone who can legally possess a handgun may carry one concealed so that point doesn't matter. Other than that I agree with you completely.

[jgalt]

jgalt, in AZ anyone who can legally possess a handgun may carry one concealed so that point doesn't matter.

I know, but the restriction is on all guns, so the issue is much broader than the carry aspect crbutler seems focused on...

Other than that I agree with you completely.

[R.E.T.]

When I worked as a bouncer, I noticed that people who were stoned would leave you alone unless you tried to stop them from going through the Taco Bell drive-through. Drunks, on the other hand.... Let's just say that I noticed a lot of people who should have a warning label tattooed on their forehead that says "Instant *******, just add alcohol"

Years later, I noticed the exact same thing working in an emergency room.

This parallels my experience, when I have seen people smoking they just seem to mellow out.

[Edward]

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.

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 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.

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.

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...

I agree, except for the optimism. I'm just too cynical to have any of that. What I'm getting at is simply that forewarned is forearmed, and receiving a reminder that there could be serious consequences - as opposed to receiving surprise consequences - is probably a good thing.

TL;DR: I miss the JSTOR access I had in college. Finding full text papers for free on the internet is a huge pain in the ass.