What We're Smoking (MJ legalization FAQs)

[EastWest Gal]

So it's not really like this?

When I was in college, my then boyfriend and I went out into a wooded area on campus and got high, then went to the movies and saw Reefer Madness. That’s the only way to see the movie.

They made a musical satire of the 1936 movie in 1998.

In the 1980s we were able to give small doses of THC to counteract some of the side effects of cancer chemotherapy.

 

[Aerides]

You lose your 2nd Amendment rights if you are a medical marijuana user by federal law. Some states have passed laws to amend that, but remains illegal by most law enforcement.

Not exactly. If you already have firearms, you don't get them revoked, no permits get lost either. It does, however, mean you can't purchase a gun at a federally licensed arms dealer. Private sales are ok but depends on the state if they have additional laws about that.

But you don't outright lose your 2A rights.

 

[Aerides]

This is the joke that is being played on the American public. I totally agree with legalization. However, the implementation has been less about decriminalization and all about tax revenue.

But of course hand in hand with good old grift and monopolies. In many cases, you'll find the backers of legalization/medical/etc., aren't grass roots normal people, they are those with something to gain. Just have a google around Nick Lachey and what he tried to do in OH a few years back. And I'm sure many pushing against legalizations are in the liquor and pharma industries or others who stand to lose. It's not just about letting people have a puff or not.

 

[jim584672]

You lose your 2nd Amendment rights if you are a medical marijuana user by federal law. Some states have passed laws to amend that, but remains illegal by most law enforcement.

Couldn't you just check NO on the firearms form question on marijuana? Seems super easy to get around. Also having a MM card does not prove use.

 

[Music Lover]

Alli am going to say is that when there is legalization, lots of criminal activity occurs.

And that includes illegal growers, bootleggers and others thieving the products. How about murders that didn't used to happen?

My stepson was a pothead, and he was in a 20 year fog. 10 years later, he still has no personal drive or ambition.

I know several very successful business owners with drive and ambition who smoke on occasion. It's no different than having the occasional drink. It's very likely that your stepson would have had no ambition even if he didn't smoke pot.

One of my friends had a side gig doing concert security for decades. He told me that when he saw people passing a joint around during a show he never worried...they were there to listen to music and never caused trouble. The overwhelming majority of problems were caused by drunks who puked everywhere and started fights.

 

[Jerry1]

Couldn't you just check NO on the firearms form question on marijuana? Seems super easy to get around. Also having a MM card does not prove use.

If you check NO on any of the questions, you don’t pass the test and you will not be sold a firearm.

 

[folivier]

Uhuh, we really need more people driving impaired or distracted....

 

[MRG]

If so, I'd request some references[/B]. Because that's the exact opposite of everything I've ever read, going back to the 21st Amendment. Legalization doesn't immediately solve all the problems, especially with the states tax strategies encouraging a strong competing black market, but I can guarantee you that violent crime regarding marijuana goes down everywhere legalization occurs.

There's numerous papers detailing all the harmful effects of cannibis. Transport yourself to 1930-1990 and you will find many.

 

[jim584672]

If you check NO on any of the questions, you don’t pass the test and you will not be sold a firearm.

Since I don't know the actual question I assumed it was asking if you ever used and I would say NO. Inverse as needed.

 

[sengsational]

I suppose one may presume more people will get buzzed if it's legal, but how many people reduce or eliminate other things? Probably not zero. Statistics from legalized states don't seem to support negative societal consequences, that I've seen.

I do think that if the price of the legal stuff is made too high through taxation, then there's a lot left on the table, because getting rid of the black market and associated negative consequences of that could be make it a bigger win.

As to impairment while driving, there is lots of data showing alcohol is very dangerous. Being sleepy is actually more dangerous (causes many more deaths than booze). I wonder just how dangerous a THC high is. My experience is over 40 years old, but it seemed like THC influence made people go slower, and they seemed more attentive (as opposed to alcohol where it was faster and less attentive). Not that I want a bunch of buzzed drivers out on the road, but a knee-jerk suggestion that all impairments are equal isn't logical.

I do kind of worry about that certain phenotype who might get into a habit that drains traditional "drive", but I've seen others who manage it well, and in fact thrive with it. That example would be an artist friend of a friend who makes a good living, producing her work while under the influence.

It's going to be used whether legal or not. If I were king of the world, I certainly wouldn't try to stop it.

 

[MichaelB]

How has it been in the state you live in, both from a public perspective and also from your perspective?

Has it been "no big deal" or have there been major problems? Has it been a financial Godsend for the state? Has the public opinion generally been pleased or have certain groups been complaining about it? Have the accident rates increased? Have other drugs become more of a problem? Have crime rates changed?

Research shows the effect of legalizing consumption of recreational marijuana has multiple effects, some of which are expected, others a surprise.

There is a decline in violent crime in areas where dispensaries are located (paper here)

When used by school age people there is a decline in math and science scores based on standardized testing (article here}

There is an increase in tourism favoring the cities where use is legal. Its not clear how long this increase lasts.

There's a reduction in alcohol related traffic fatalities (paper here)

There's a reduction in alcohol and drug overdoses (blog post here)

The rate of pedestrian deaths and accidents has increased. (can't find the paper).

Non-US citizens who acknowledge lawful consumption can be denied entrance to the US.

 

[MRG]

Thought this was interesting.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/washington-state-kicks-off-joints-jabs-promote-covid/story?id=78145328

The Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board announced Monday that the promotion, called "Joints for Jabs," was effective immediately and would run through July 12. During the afforded time period, state-licensed cannabis retailers are permitted to give one free pre-rolled joint to customers who are 21 or older when they receive their first or second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine at an active, on-site vaccination clinic. Customers can only claim the complimentary joint from the retail location during the same visit as receiving the jab, according to the board.

 

[Winemaker]

Not exactly. If you already have firearms, you don't get them revoked, no permits get lost either. It does, however, mean you can't purchase a gun at a federally licensed arms dealer. Private sales are ok but depends on the state if they have additional laws about that.

But you don't outright lose your 2A rights.

If one has a medical marijuana card, you become a "prohibited person" under federal law. Prohibited persons are not able to purchase or possess a firearm. Period. In 2014, Congress refused the Justice Department the funds to prosecute gun owners that have a medical marijuana card, but it is still the law.

However, a recreational pot user, who is not registered, is not considered a "prohibited person".

However, states like PA, will not turn their medical marijuana list over to the ATF, which places them on the "prohibited persons" list.

 

[MRG]

Legal state, tourist area, four local recreational dispensaries in town. Mostly used by folks who are older than my 64 years.

 

[jim584672]

If you check NO on any of the questions, you don’t pass the test and you will not be sold a firearm.

Just out of curiosity I looked up the question...

"e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

So NO was right.

 

[Jerry1]

Just out of curiosity I looked up the question...

"e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

So NO was right.

Sorry, got it backwards. Haven’t purchased a firearm in a long time.

So, if you answer yes to that question, an FFL will not sell you a firearm.

Interesting though, it doesn’t really specify what unlawful means. It is assumed that it means Federally unlawful, but as a resident of a state that allows MJ, it would be interesting to see that challenged. It seems like it would be reasonable for a person in that state to conclude that they are not doing anything unlawful. Probably would point to “controlled substance” to link unlawful to a Federal definition.

 

[harley]

There's numerous papers detailing all the harmful effects of cannibis. Transport yourself to 1930-1990 and you will find many.

I wasn't talking about potential harmful effects of Cannabis. Of course there are some. Same with carrots. Or anything else. I was saying, contrary to what Bamaman posted, that violent and drug related crime decreases after legalization. It's very well documented.

Anyway, most of the harmful effects of cannabis has always been related more to the drug war than the drug. That's the part that gets relieved by legalization. The (relatively minor) physical effects stay the same, legal or not. Although at least with legalization it's easier to get edibles and tinctures and such that remove the damage caused by smoking.

 

[ExFlyBoy5]

On the subject of federal law and firearm possession, here is an opinion letter sent to FFLs from the ATF back in 2011. Although not technically controlling, it is still the "official" position of the ATF.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/o...-letter-marijuana-medicinal-purposes/download

 

[braumeister]

A ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals from 2016 (Wilson v Lynch).

“Title 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter bar only the sale of firearms to Wilson–not her possession of firearms.”

 

[MRG]

I wasn't talking about potential harmful effects of Cannabis. Of course there are some. Same with carrots. Or anything else. I was saying, contrary to what Bamaman posted, that violent and drug related crime decreases after legalization. It's very well documented.

Anyway, most of the harmful effects of cannabis has always been related more to the drug war than the drug. That's the part that gets relieved by legalization. The (relatively minor) physical effects stay the same, legal or not. Although at least with legalization it's easier to get edibles and tinctures and such that remove the damage caused by smoking.

[emoji4]

There's a bunch of old propaganda that is still actively produced. I received something a couple years ago from a well respected KC area hospital with an oped "There's Nothing Medical about Marijuana" spouting almost Refer Madness levels of lies.

 

[Car-Guy]

If you check NO on any of the questions, you don’t pass the test and you will not be sold a firearm.

Sorry, got it backwards. Haven’t purchased a firearm in a long time.

So, if you answer yes to that question, an FFL will not sell you a firearm.

It's been a few months since I filled out ATF Form 4473 (aka the yellow form) so I had to look it up. I think to "pass" you need to answer no to all the yes/no questions in section 11 "except the first one"... That one is "usually" answered yes .

Of course none of this applies unless you are buying a gun from an FFL... But then we are getting into the heart of "The Gun Show Loophole" debate.

 

[audreyh1]

Just out of curiosity I looked up the question...

"e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

So NO was right.

Uh oh - all those caffeine addicts wouldn’t pass.

 

[Qs Laptop]

I wasn't talking about potential harmful effects of Cannabis. Of course there are some. Same with carrots. Or anything else. I was saying, contrary to what Bamaman posted, that violent and drug related crime decreases after legalization. It's very well documented.

Bamaman said that illegal growers, bootleggers and stealing of pot increases after legalization. He left as a question whether or not murders increased.

I don't think there is any question that with the high price of government sanctioned weed (due to taxes) that illegal bootlegging, illegal growers and thievery happens and increases.

 

[Aerides]

Is it really higher priced though? $35 for an eighth seems like a pretty good price compared to paying $25 street rate in the late 80's. I'd say that's an awfully low inflation rate. I have no idea what the street rate is in today's dollars so perhaps it's gotten much cheaper lately?

Of course you can pay more, but that was always the case. And to avoid the "street" element, to get your choice, well worth the modest markt up.

 

[ExFlyBoy5]

A ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals from 2016 (Wilson v Lynch).

“Title 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter bar only the sale of firearms to Wilson–not her possession of firearms.”

It's a 9th Circuit Opinion, so it's not applicable across the entirety of the US.