This is a discussion on I'm on drugs within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Thank you. All I was saying was don't ask, don't tell when it comes to doctors. It is none of his business if you own ...
Thank you. All I was saying was don't ask, don't tell when it comes to doctors. It is none of his business if you own guns or not. They indeed have the power to make your gun loving life miserable if they want.
Treat me good, I'll treat you better. Treat me bad, I'll treat you worse.
Grasseater // Grass~eat~er noun, often attributive \ˈgras-ē-tər\
A person who is incapable of independent thought; a person who is herd animal-like in behavior; one who cannot distinguish between right and wrong; a foolish person.
See also Sheep
Is it legal to be intoxicated while possessing a firearm? No.
18-12-106. Prohibited use of weapons.
(1) A person commits a class 2 misdemeanor if:
(d) The person has in his or her possession a firearm while the person is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or of a controlled substance, as defined in section 12-22-303 (7), C.R.S. Possession of a permit issued under section 18-12-105.1, as it existed prior to its repeal, or possession of a permit or a temporary emergency permit issued pursuant to part 2 of this article is no defense to a violation of this subsection (1).
I have no idea what the judges in your state have ruled on this.
Also, the law you cited seems based on an assumption that any and all controlled substances always are bad whereas folks can and do function better when taking controlled substances. For example, someone suffering from pain may be highly irritable and easily angered when disturbed but easing the pain can reduce that reaction. Someone who suffers from situational anxiety (e.g., my wife can't go near water because a friend drowned) might remain calm and reasonable instead of panicky when near water if the phobia is treated with a controlled substance.
Just trying to educate, not hammer the black letter of the law.
(I get more than bit irritated at the innumerable folks who confuse legally prescribed useful controlled substances properly taken, with illegal drugs and with legal drugs taken in an illegal manner. It is the same mental confusion people apply to legally owned and legally possessed, and legally used guns, which also set off emotional and irrational reactions in the anti-crowd. Well, there is a huge anti-drug industry in this country that just as actively demonizes prescription medicine the way the anti-gun folks demonize guns. Just like the anti-gun folks think there is no such things as a good gun or a good gun owner, these anti-drug crusaders think there is no such thing as a useful medicine.)
This phrase posted by ppkheat pretty much says that in Louisiana you can't have any detectable quantity of a controlled substance in your body, ", or a blood or urine test shows any confirmed presence of a CDS."
That is an excessively high and stringent standard, and it appears the Louisiana legislature failed to distinguish between detectable levels and effective levels.
To get on my high horse again, we need to testing for impairment, and not for drugs with dubious claims of adverse effects or and claims of abuse-- when the drug has plenty of legitimate uses which don't alter judgment.
In Western Australia you can walk into a pharmacy and buy the equivalent of Tylenol + Codeine with no prescription and no hassle. Its quite helpful for treating minor burns, bad sprains, and headaches. Can't buy Pepto Bismol or equivalent there though. Funny how different places put controls on different stuff that others see as innocuous.
We used to be able to buy cough syrup containing codeine.
We have turned ourselves into a a nation of worry warts who believe the world consists of ourselves (perfect) and substance abusers.
I really wouldn't worry about it. It is prescription medicine, and if you need it then you need it to live a semi-normal life. I would suggest just staying home to recover anyways.
Big question here is how low of a level can the analysis detect?
Regarding detectable and effective? Different drugs affect different people in different ways. Although some may not like it, no doubt the detectable criteria is the safest choice. We are about gun safety here on DC huh?
I don't have any condtion, medical or otherwise, that causes me to take any CDS whatsoever so I don't have a dog in this hunt. I might one day and I'll cross that bridge when I get to it.
Chemists have devised tests which are unbelievably sensitive. Some of these would falsely label someone a user if they were merely present within a room where someone else smoked; as might an investigator find himself. It is very very important to set defining cut-offs which have meaning, and not merely state any detectable level. As we all know (or it has been reported), every dollar bill has cocaine on it. Does that mean every holder of a dollar bill is illegally in possession of cocaine?
It is interesting that the LA legislature set a cut off for alcohol but failed to specify a cut-off for other substances. Basically, another trick law that can turn a law abiding person into a criminal.
My concern was more along the lines of the legality of having in my system if I had to discharge my weapon.
The doc instructed me to take two as needed, which was a bit too much for me. I definitely felt a bit stoned and nauseous so I'm glad I kept the guns locked away and the car keys on the counter that day.
Since then, I've figured out that taking one in the morning and taking the dogs around the block wields the best results. Takes the edge off and loosens up my knee pretty good for the rest of the day.
I've resumed carrying since I don't feel the least bit impaired but I'm still a little worried about the question of judgement from a prosecutors stand point.
Both urine and blood samples also detect well below the level of impairment. As discussed earlier, half life for Vicodin (using that as an example) is 3.8 hours. That means it has no effect on you whatsoever after about 16-20 hours. But, its presence is detectable.
This is precisely the point. There is a huge difference between using "not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties" as a definition of intoxication and using an arbitrary "any confirmed presence of a CDS."I guess you could say that the Texas legislature created the same "trick law", though their alcohol limit is set higher at .08 and no cut-off either for other substances. According to the Texas Penal Code, it is unlawful for an individual who is intoxicated to carry a handgun. It is important to note that the Penal Code defines “intoxicated” as not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties
Let's not make this discussion a TX v LA thing. It is too important for everyone to understand the distinctions and know their own state laws.