Regardless of how you feel about marijuana and it’s medicinal benefits I think this disabled veteran has some very valid points. Considering the fact that he has a prescription for the medical use of marijuana does that invalidate his right to the 2nd Amendment and the ability to defend himself and his family with a firearm? Not in my book.
Redding resident and Army veteran Sean Merritt says he’s been denied the right to purchase a firearm at a local gun shop owned by Redding Mayor Patrick Jones. The sticking point hinges on a line on a form required by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which asks: “Are you an unlawful user of or addicted to marijuana, a depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?”
Because he uses medical marijuana (and even though he has a legal recommendation), Merritt says he was told by Jones that he must answer “yes” on the form, which prevents him from purchasing a firearm at Jones Fort, a popular gun and pawn shop.
At last night’s City Council meeting, Merritt argued his case before the mayor. Here’s the compelling video of his appearance before the council: Go to link for video.
When he inquired about purchasing a firearm at Jones Fort, Merritt said he wanted to make sure the drugs he was on wouldn’t prohibit him.
“They had no problem with the morphine or the klonopin, but when I said ‘medical marijuana’ (the employee) said, ‘You will not be able to purchase a firearm because you will fail the background check with the FBI,’ ” Merritt said. “I said, ‘That’s impossible because my records are confidential and if the FBI wanted them, the person who gave them up would be the one to answer for breaking my confidentiality. Not only that but President Obama has given the power to the states on the medical marijuana issue.”
A prescription doesn’t make it legal to have or use Marijuana under Federal law.
We have a bunch of States with laws that invite their citizens to engage in activity that exposes them to Federal criminal liability. Instead of figuring out whether or not Marijuana in certain circumstances should be legal (entirely legal, not legal under State law but still illegal under Federal) we have this situation where the Feds are unofficially looking the other way in certain circumstances.
Could he have meant prescription? A legal recommendation from a doctor is just another word for prescription from what I can tell.
Either way I do not understand the irrational reasoning as to why using marijuana through a prescription or illegally has any effect on a person’s 2nd amendment rights. I thought we took Reefer Madness out of the video curriculum for new government employees long ago?
i don’t think there are any experts left that still believe marijuana isn’t addictive. just because it doesn’t cause the dopamine dump and endorphin receptor blockages of pure stimulants and opiates doesn’t mean it doesn’t cause dependence- to the contrary, there are a lot of marijuana “addicts” out there. people who can’t function normally without it- physical and psychological dependence, and typical withdrawl symptoms from prolonged cessation.
i do wholly agree that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, however. and less addictive.
From all I’ve read on the matter its addictive properties are little different than you wanting to eat sweet foods and the withdrawal is like you ran out of twinkies. It has nowhere near the addictive qualities that cigarettes or alcohol have. Hell I think my addiction to firearms is worse than any marijuana user. You also have to think of the psychosis aspect to it. Is it really a chemical dependence or is it a conscious one? Either way I’m still waiting for the day that these controlled substances are analyzed scientifically instead of regulated according to falsehoods like from the Reefer Madness movie.
If the person had a true prescription to the drug, shouldn’t he be able to purchase a firearm if he simply just says NO next time? I can’t recall the pass/fail intricacies of the 4473. I failed one once but that was just due to the ATF’s arbitrary decision to revive their ruling on stripped lowers and neither I nor the shop owner were aware of it.
I don’t consume caffeine or any other recreational drug, and refuse to take any type of prescription pain pill, so yeah I’m living in a nice glass house and not a rock in sight.
On that drug laws are f#$Fing retarded, laws should only exist to protect one individual from another, such as robbery, driving while intoxicated, assault and so on. They shouldn’t exist to protect some one from themselves. If some one wants to get high on cocaine they should have the option to do so.
And before every beer drinker in here jumps on me, you’re drug of choice kills more innocent people every year than gang bangers, drug addicts, rapist, and asshole combined. How many times does some one go on a domestic violence call because the husband is high on crack? Far more likely he’s consumed a 12 pack of Corona and is beating the shit out of his wife in kids. And the number of people who drive intoxicated is staggering, I’m willing to bet a number reading this have one or more DUI’s and they fail to understand just how dangerous they are, simply because alcohol is the accepted drug due to decades of slick marketing.
People will look down on the crack head who’s doing harm only to himself but the friend who gets arrested for blowing a BAC of 1.5 is seen as a joke as long as he doesn’t kill anyone and is soon forgive (if he needs forgiveness at all) while few fail to understand that the assholes driving with just a few to many beers kill more children a year than all the pedo’s in North America combined.
So people need to get off their moral high horse and accept the fact that it’s all dangerous none more so than the other, and it’s not their right to decide what another adult will do with his/her body.
So if you can’t accept the idea of people using drugs outside of booze and cigarettes but you’re a user of one of the two, you need to accept the fact that you’re a hypocritical douche.
This is ridiculous. The man is a vet, and has a prescription.
I agree, he should have just answered “no”, as in my eyes, having a prescription (from a licensed MD) does not equate to unlawful use.
But where does the line get drawn between Fed and State? Does the 10th apply here? Is the weed grown locally, and dispensed at a local, licensed dispensary according to local laws? If so, the Fed can piss off.
The Constitution was designed by the Founding Fathers to give the power to the States and have a weak, de-centralized government. The notion of an all powerful central federal government dictating from D.C is some socialist beauracrats wet dream.
On the topic at hand, the only people who are denied is the people who are honest and in this man’s case he’s a disabled veteran that finds the same relief through marijuana as he does multiple prescription narcotics. Given that he has a prescription, or recommendation, from a licensed Doctor I don’t see any reason for him not to obtain a firearm.
The active ingredient in Cannibis sativa is THC (delta 1 tetrahydrocannibinol). THC is active in very low dosages. Therapeutic THC is typically delivered 5mg tid (three times a day). As addiction in the sense I mean it is a gross process, tiny dosages typically don’t generate the large-scale physiological changes a true addiction needs to get revved up (neurological yes; physio no). So most people, scientists and street-users, think of marijuana as non-addictive. A recent study at Columbia University offers potentially contradictory evidence, but it’s still only one study and not accepted as universal fact at this time. As such, if you say THC is not clinically addictive, most of the world will agree with you.
Essentially all drugs are used in “an addictive fashion” by some people. However, for any drug to be identified as highly addictive, there should be evidence that substantial numbers of users repeatedly fail in their attempts to discontinue use and develop use-patterns that interfere with other life activities.
National epidemiological surveys show that the large majority of people who have had experience with marijuana do not become regular users.
In 1993, among Americans age 12 and over, about 34% had used marijuana sometime in their life, but only 9% had used it in the past year, 4.3% in the past month, and 2.8% in the past week.
A longitudinal study of young adults who had first been surveyed in high school also found a high “discontinuation rate” for marijuana. While 77% had used the drug, 74% of those had not used in the past year and 84% had not used in the past month.
Of course, even people who continue using marijuana for several years or more are not necessarily “addicted” to it. Many regular users - including many daily users - consume marijuana in a way that does not interfere with other life activities, and may in some cases enhance them.
There is only scant evidence that marijuana produces physical dependence and withdrawal in humans.
When human subjects were administered daily oral doses of 180-210 mg of THC - the equivalent of 15-20 joints per day - abrupt cessation produced adverse symptoms, including disturbed sleep, restlessness, nausea, decreased appetite, and sweating. The authors interpreted these symptoms as evidence of physical dependence. However, they noted the syndrome’s relatively mild nature and remained skeptical of its occurrence when marijuana is consumed in usual doses and situations. Indeed, when humans are allowed to control consumption, even high doses are not followed by adverse withdrawal symptoms.
Signs of withdrawal have been created in laboratory animals following the administration of very high doses. Recently, at a NIDA-sponsored conference, a researcher described unpublished observations involving rats pretreated with THC and then dosed with a cannabinoid receptor-blocker. Not surprisingly, this provoked sudden withdrawal, by stripping receptors of the drug. This finding has no relevance to human users who, upon ceasing use, experience a very gradual removal of THC from receptors.
The most avid publicizers of marijuana’s addictive nature are treatment providers who, in recent years, have increasingly admitted insured marijuana users to their programs. The increasing use of drug-detection technologies in the workplace, schools and elsewhere has also produced a group of marijuana users who identify themselves as “addicts” in order to receive treatment instead of punishment.
Web Chat on Addictions with Dr. Allen Battle, UTMG Clinical Psychologist.
Dr. Battle: No, marijuana is not addictive. It isn’t addictive because the active ingredient in it, THC, does not become a part of the body chemistry. So that then, that body, would be dependent on it just as it is dependent on water or food. That is the essence of addition; it is physiological!
Marijuana is not an addictive drug because it does not become a vital part of the user’s body chemistry.
Calling B.S. on the Idea of ‘Marijuana Addiction’
By Paul Armentano, AlterNet
Posted on March 22, 2008, Printed on February 5, 2010 http://www.alternet.org/story/80408/
The U.S. government believes that America is going to pot – literally.
Earlier this month, the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse announced plans to spend $4 million to establish the nation’s first-ever “Center on Cannabis Addiction,” which will be based in La Jolla, Calif. The goal of the center, according to NIDA’s press release, is to “develop novel approaches to the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of marijuana addiction.”
Not familiar with the notion of “marijuana addiction”? You’re not alone. In fact, aside from the handful of researchers who have discovered that there are gobs of federal grant money to be had hunting for the government’s latest pot boogeyman, there’s little consensus that such a syndrome is clinically relevant – if it even exists at all.
But don’t try telling that to the mainstream press – which recently published headlines worldwide alleging, “Marijuana withdrawal rivals that of nicotine.” The alleged “study” behind the headlines involved all of 12 participants, each of whom were longtime users of pot and tobacco, and assessed the self-reported moods of folks after they were randomly chosen to abstain from both substances. Big surprise: they weren’t happy.
And don’t try telling Big Pharma – which hopes to cash in on the much-hyped “pot and addiction” craze by touting psychoactive prescription drugs like Lithium to help hardcore smokers kick the marijuana habit.
And certainly don’t try telling the drug “treatment” industry, whose spokespeople are quick to warn that marijuana “treatment” admissions have risen dramatically in recent years, but neglect to explain that this increase is due entirely to the advent of drug courts sentencing minor pot offenders to rehab in lieu of jail. According to state and national statistics, up to 70 percent of all individuals in drug treatment for marijuana are placed there by the criminal justice system. Of those in treatment, some 36 percent had not even used marijuana in the 30 days prior to their admission. These are the “addicts”?
Indeed, the concept of pot addiction is big business – even if the evidence in support of the pseudosyndrome is flimsy at best.
And what does the science say? Well, according to the nonpartisan National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine – which published a multiyear, million-dollar federal study assessing marijuana and health in 1999 – “millions of Americans have tried marijuana, but most are not regular users [and] few marijuana users become dependent on it.” The investigator added, “[A]though [some] marijuana users develop dependence, they appear to be less likely to do so than users of other drugs (including alcohol and nicotine), and marijuana dependence appears to be less severe than dependence on other drugs.”
Just how less likely? According to the Institute of Medicine’s 267-page report, fewer than 10 percent of those who try cannabis ever meet the clinical criteria for a diagnosis of “drug dependence” (based on DSM-III-R criteria). By contrast, the IOM reported that 32 percent of tobacco users, 23 percent of heroin users, 17 percent of cocaine users and 15 percent of alcohol users meet the criteria for “drug dependence.”
In short, it’s the legal drugs that have Americans hooked – not pot.
But what about the claims that ceasing marijuana smoking can trigger withdrawal symptoms similar to those associated with quitting tobacco? Once again, it’s a matter of degree. According to the Institute of Medicine, pot’s withdrawal symptoms, when identified, are “mild and subtle” compared with the profound physical syndromes associated with ceasing chronic alcohol use – which can be fatal – or those abstinence symptoms associated with daily tobacco use, which are typically severe enough to persuade individuals to reinitiate their drug-taking behavior.
The IOM report further explained, “[u]nder normal cannabis use, the long half-life and slow elimination from the body of THC prevent[s] substantial abstinence symptoms” from occurring. As a result, cannabis’ withdrawal symptoms are typically limited to feelings of mild anxiety, irritability, agitation and insomnia.
Most importantly, unlike the withdrawal symptoms associated with the cessation of most other intoxicants, pot’s mild after-effects do not appear to be either severe or long-lasting enough to perpetuate marijuana use in individuals who have decided to quit. This is why most marijuana smokers report voluntarily ceasing their cannabis use by age 30 with little physical or psychological difficulty. By comparison, many cigarette smokers who pick up the habit early in life continue to smoke for the rest of their lives, despite making numerous efforts to quit.
So let’s review.
Marijuana is widely accepted by the National Academy of Sciences, the Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs, the British Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and others to lack the severe physical and psychological dependence liability associated with most other intoxicants, including alcohol and tobacco. Further, pot lacks the profound abstinence symptoms associated with most legal intoxicants, including caffeine.
That’s not to say that some marijuana smokers don’t find quitting difficult. Naturally, a handful of folks do, though this subpopulation is hardly large enough to warrant pot’s legal classification (along with heroin) as an illicit substance with a “high potential for abuse.” Nor does this fact justify the continued arrest of more than 800,000 Americans annually for pot violations any more than such concerns would warrant the criminalization of booze or nicotine.
Now if I can only get NIDA to fork me over that $4 million check.
Fact: Most people who smoke marijuana smoke it only occasionally. A small minority of Americans - less than 1 percent - smoke marijuana on a daily basis. An even smaller minority develop a dependence on marijuana. Some people who smoke marijuana heavily and frequently stop without difficulty. Others seek help from drug treatment professionals. Marijuana does not cause physical dependence. If people experience withdrawal symptoms at all, they are remarkably mild.
United States. Dept. of Health and Human Services. DASIS Report Series, Differences in Marijuana Admissions Based on Source of Referral. 2002. June 24 2005.
Johnson, L.D., et al. “National Survey Results on Drug Use from the Monitoring the Future Study, 1975-1994, Volume II: College Students and Young Adults.” Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1996.
Kandel, D.B., et al. “Prevalence and demographic correlates of symptoms of dependence on cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana and cocaine in the U.S. population.” Drug and Alcohol Dependence 44 (1997):11-29.
Stephens, R.S., et al. “Adult marijuana users seeking treatment.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 61 (1993): 1100-1104.
Again, the short answer is what he is doing is legal under California state law but illegal under Federal law, therefore he is still an unlawful user of marijuana.
We did a drug legalization thread awhile ago. There’s little here likely to be new.
Supremacy clause seems to apply here.
Form 4473 doesn’t differentiate between being an unlawful user under state or federal law. It is a federally regulated process, and federal law would applies. He has no prescription issued or recognized by DEA. He has a “legal recommendation”, which appears to have meaning only under CA law, if it even means squat. He must answer yes on 4473.
He does his own case harm by looking like he does. The legalization folks do this to themselves with great frequency. Why not shave, clean up, wear sleeves, look decent, and take your hat off when you appear before a body of government to make your case? He has a very compelling argument. There’s a better way to make it, though.
The medical marijuana debate is an interesting one, with good arguments on both sides. I’m not sure what the answer is.
