Why Medical Marijuana Patients Canít Buy Guns
function share_this(num) {
 tit=encodeURIComponent('Why Medical Marijuana Patients Canít Buy Guns');
 site = new Array(5);
 return false;

Why Medical Marijuana Patients Canít Buy Guns
Posted by CN Staff on September 07, 2016 at 10:38:08 PT
By Christopher Ingraham
Source: Washington Post
USA -- An appeals court ruled last week that a federal law prohibiting medical marijuana cardholders from purchasing guns does not violate their Second Amendment rights, because marijuana has been linked to "irrational or unpredictable behavior."The ruling came in the case of a Nevada woman who attempted to purchase a handgun in 2011, but was denied when the gun store owner recognized her as a medical marijuana cardholder, according to court documents. S. Rowan Wilson maintained that she didn't actually use marijuana, but obtained a card to make a political statement in support of liberalizing marijuana law.
Federal law prohibits gun purchases by an "unlawful user and/or an addict of any controlled substance." In 2011, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms clarified in a letter that the law applies to marijuana users "regardless of whether [their] State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes." Though a growing number of states are legalizing it for medical or recreational use, marijuana remains illegal for any purpose under federal law, which considers the drug to have a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use.The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that the federal law passes muster with the Constitution, as "it is beyond dispute that illegal drug users, including marijuana users, are likely as a consequence of that use to experience altered or impaired mental states that affect their judgment and that can lead to irrational or unpredictable behavior."The court then concluded that it is reasonable to assume that a medical marijuana cardholder is a marijuana user, and hence reasonable to deny their gun purchase on those grounds.From a legal standpoint, the nexus between marijuana use and violence was established by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Virginia, in the 2014 case of United States v. Carter. That case cited a number of studies suggesting "a significant link between drug use, including marijuana use, and violence," according to the 9th Circuit's summary.In the words of the 4th Circuit, those studies found that:"Probationers who had perpetrated violence in the past were significantly more likely to have used a host of drugs ó marijuana, hallucinogens, sedatives, and heroin ó than probationers who had never been involved in a violent episode.""Almost 50% of all state and federal prisoners who had committed violent felonies were drug abusers or addicts in the year before their arrest, as compared to only 2% of the general population.""Individuals who used marijuana or marijuana and cocaine, in addition to alcohol, were significantly more likely to engage in violent crime than individuals who only used alcohol."Among adolescent males, "marijuana use in one year frequently predicted violence in the subsequent year."The 4th Circuit argued that, on the link between drug use and violence, the question of correlation vs. causation doesn't matter: "Government need not prove a causal link between drug use and violence" to block firearms purchases by drug users. A simple link between drug use and violence, regardless of which way the causality runs, is grounds enough.Still, the 9th Circuit did suggest causation was part of its decision, saying that irrational behavior can be "a consequence" of marijuana use.This argument ó that substance use increases risky behavior ó applies to plenty of other drugs, too, and not just illegal ones. For instance, drug policy researchers Mark Kleiman, Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken have pointed out that tobacco users also are more likely to engage in crime relative to the general population."Compared with nonsmokers, cigarette smokers have a higher rate of criminality," they wrote in their 2011 book Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know. "Smoking in and of itself does not lead to crime, but within the population of smokers we are more likely to find individuals engaged in illicit behavior."The authors also point out that there's a much stronger link between violent behavior and alcohol than there is for many illegal drugs: "There is a good deal of evidence showing an association between alcohol intoxication and pharmacologically induced violent crime," they write.They added: "There is little direct association between marijuana or opiate use and violent crime. ... it is also possible that for some would-be offenders, the pharmacological effect of certain drugs (marijuana and heroin are often given as examples) may actually reduce violent tendencies."Christopher Ingraham writes about politics, drug policy and all things data. He previously worked at the Brookings Institution and the Pew Research Center. Source: Washington Post (DC)Author:   Christopher IngrahamPublished: September 7, 2016Copyright: 2016 Washington Post CompanyContact: letters Website: URL: Medical Marijuana Archives 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help 

Comment #5 posted by boballen on September 08, 2016 at 05:34:30 PT:
The Dick Cheney Effect
I think there might be a case made to deny gun sales to a few unstable folks closer to center of government.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by The GCW on September 07, 2016 at 20:34:46 PT
Cannabis prohibition is one hell of a crime.
The IGNOIDS are living in their imagined REEFER MADNESS lies, half-truths, propaganda and B.S.***Crap only stupid and/ or greedy people accept anymore.*** People making decision who should not be allowed to do it, plain and simple.People who have conjured up the power to get into positions that harm humankind in general.It only gets worse. How do they escape high court criminal counts and capitol punishment.Cannabis prohibition is one hell of a crime; the perpetrators are getting off scott free.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by Hope on September 07, 2016 at 15:56:45 PT
Normally, I would be upset about this.
It does remind me of the fear we often discussed when some of people's rights to God's green herb were slowly being restored out in California in the nineties. The problem of being on these government "Lists" that they add you to when you register or sign up for medical cannabis use has always been a down side of the push and shove we've been engaged in with prohibs, lo, these many years. It's a list of people they want to watch very, very closely. It's a kind of black list... and it could be abused in so many ways. Damn lists! We knew that was going to be a problem... because the prohibs would make sure it was problem. So, I'm not really surprised at this turn of events, at this point, because cannabis is still, wrongfully so, an illegal "Drug" at the federal level. When we get that remedied and in proper order, then people on the "List" for no other reason than cannabis use will be free once again to keep and bear arms. If use of alcohol doesn't interfere with one's right to keep and bear arms, then the use of cannabis certainly should not.If this medical use lady wanted to participate in the shooting sports, I'm sorry for the state of today's government keeping her from doing that. If she intended to purchase something for security purposes, perhaps she can invest those dollars she had budgeted to the gun store, instead, in the purchase of a couple of fine Rottweilers. The Feds will eventually have to clean up their dirty rotten act of singling out and abusing citizens because of cannabis use. Government should not be in the business of intentionally abusing people for cannabis use. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by Vincent on September 07, 2016 at 15:13:50 PT:
The real "mistake"
The mistake is not that the article was posted twice...the REAL mistake was the one that the Circuit Court made in associating Marijuana with violence.These anti-Marijuana LOWLIFES aren't ready to give up yet, now are they?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by FoM on September 07, 2016 at 10:39:51 PT
I made a mistake and posted this article but deleted it and reposted it since it was in the Washington Post not the NYTs.
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment