I'm on drugs - Page 3

I'm on drugs

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 ...

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 60

Thread: I'm on drugs

  1. #31
    VIP Member Array AZ Husker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    4,244
    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.


  2. #32
    VIP Member Array Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,485
    Quote Originally Posted by ppkheat View Post
    ...Here is an excerpt from our "duty of permitees"
    A permittee may not carry and conceal a handgun while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) as defined in R.S. 40:961 and 964. For purposes of the concealed handgun law, a permittee is considered under the influence of alcohol when a blood alcohol reading of .05% or greater by weight of alcohol in the blood is obtained, or a blood or urine test shows any confirmed presence of a CDS....
    And scratch Louisiana off the list...
    Sticks

    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

  3. #33
    VIP Member
    Array ppkheat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    4,186
    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).
    Turn the election's in 2014 to a "2A Revolution". It will serve as a 1994 refresher not to "infringe" on our Second Amendment. We know who they are now.........SEND 'EM HOME. Our success in this will be proportional to how hard we work to make it happen.

  4. #34
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,915
    Quote Originally Posted by ppkheat View Post
    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).
    What does "under the influence of" really mean in your state? The phrase could be interpreted to mean no amount of any controlled substance is OK or it could be interpreted to mean "impaired by a controlled substance."

    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.)

  5. #35
    VIP Member
    Array ppkheat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    4,186
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    What does "under the influence of" really mean in your state? The phrase could be interpreted to mean no amount of any controlled substance is OK or it could be interpreted to mean "impaired by a controlled substance."

    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.)
    I was wondering exactly the same thing regarding "under the influence" too, in the above referenced C.R.S. (Colorado Revised Statutes) (not my state)
    Turn the election's in 2014 to a "2A Revolution". It will serve as a 1994 refresher not to "infringe" on our Second Amendment. We know who they are now.........SEND 'EM HOME. Our success in this will be proportional to how hard we work to make it happen.

  6. #36
    VIP Member Array hogdaddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    N/E Florida
    Posts
    3,317
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    I never get any good meds. All I ever get is tylenol 3 or stupid 800 mils of motrin. I envy people who always get the good stuff, lol.
    Down here is called the Pill Mill (Florida)- I know a deputy that got hydracodone the FLUE ; )
    H/D
    A Native Floridian = RARE


    IT'S OUR RIGHTS>THEY WANT TO WRONG
    H/D

  7. #37
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,915
    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.

  8. #38
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,915
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    I never get any good meds. All I ever get is tylenol 3 or stupid 800 mils of motrin. I envy people who always get the good stuff, lol.
    Contains codeine.

    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.

  9. #39
    Ex Member Array Toorop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere out there.
    Posts
    1,312
    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.

  10. #40
    VIP Member
    Array ppkheat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    4,186
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    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."
    Here it is, and I think a good exercise would be for everyone to look at their own States related laws as well. A permittee may not carry and conceal a handgun while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) as defined in R.S. 40:961 and 964. For purposes of the concealed handgun law, a permittee is considered under the influence of alcohol when a blood alcohol reading of .05% or greater by weight of alcohol in the blood is obtained, or a blood or urine test shows any confirmed presence of a CDS.

    Big question here is how low of a level can the analysis detect?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    That is an excessively high and stringent standard, and it appears the Louisiana legislature failed to distinguish between detectable levels and effective levels.
    I'll tell you another place that the Louisiana Legislature set high and stringent standards is in determining reciprocity, they found a loophole that enabled some Louisiana residents to get an out-of-state non-resident permit without a thorough enough background check.

    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.
    Turn the election's in 2014 to a "2A Revolution". It will serve as a 1994 refresher not to "infringe" on our Second Amendment. We know who they are now.........SEND 'EM HOME. Our success in this will be proportional to how hard we work to make it happen.

  11. #41
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,915
    Quote Originally Posted by ppkheat View Post
    Here it is, and I think a good exercise would be for everyone to look at their own States related laws as well. A permittee may not carry and conceal a handgun while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) as defined in R.S. 40:961 and 964. For purposes of the concealed handgun law, a permittee is considered under the influence of alcohol when a blood alcohol reading of .05% or greater by weight of alcohol in the blood is obtained, or a blood or urine test shows any confirmed presence of a CDS.

    Big question here is how low of a level can the analysis detect?



    I'll tell you another place that the Louisiana Legislature set high and stringent standards is in determining reciprocity, they found a loophole that enabled some Louisiana residents to get an out-of-state non-resident permit without a thorough enough background check.

    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.
    Detectable is really a poor choice. Here's why. There are commercial drug testing companies which use hair samples instead of urine or blood. These tests give a 90 day look back period, which is great if you want to make sure your employees don't abuse, but are totally irrelevant to impairment. Moreover, both urine and blood tests have detection thresholds which typically are well below if not very very far below the levels needed for a therapeutic effect or for impairment. Given the specificity of the LA law, a person could take a medicine, stay home a day, be well and unimpaired, but not be legal because the drug is still detectable. Such a law is simply foolish. It is the sort of thing legislatures like to do to show how tough they are on drug users/abusers, but it is divorced from biological and pharmaceutical reality.

    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.

  12. #42
    VIP Member
    Array ppkheat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    4,186
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Detectable is really a poor choice. Here's why. There are commercial drug testing companies which use hair samples instead of urine or blood. These tests give a 90 day look back period, which is great if you want to make sure your employees don't abuse, but are totally irrelevant to impairment.
    Hair samples are not really relevant here since blood and urine only fit the criteria


    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    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.
    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 by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance in the body. Additionally, the Penal Code considers having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher to constitute intoxication.
    Turn the election's in 2014 to a "2A Revolution". It will serve as a 1994 refresher not to "infringe" on our Second Amendment. We know who they are now.........SEND 'EM HOME. Our success in this will be proportional to how hard we work to make it happen.

  13. #43
    Member Array JerryRushing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    42
    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.

  14. #44
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,915
    Quote Originally Posted by ppkheat View Post
    Hair samples are not really relevant here since blood and urine only fit the criteria
    They are relevant as examples of how there is a huge difference between detection and intoxication and impairment.
    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.


    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
    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."

    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.

  15. #45
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,915
    Quote Originally Posted by JerryRushing View Post
    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.
    If the prosecutor does his or her job honestly, s/he will know the difference between having a detectable amount of something present and being impaired. However, you should find out what AZ law says and how it defines things. The LA example ppkheat gave is a good example of why you can't guess and must check the law.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. At last the truth -- It's the Drugs...
    By DaveH in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: June 19th, 2010, 01:36 AM
  2. Why you should say no to drugs: Woodstock Version
    By Miggy in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: October 16th, 2008, 11:20 PM
  3. We are all on drugs! This may be the problem!
    By cdwolf in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: March 11th, 2008, 12:17 AM
  4. CWP Instructor must be on drugs...
    By briansmech in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: February 6th, 2008, 10:56 AM
  5. One more reason not to use drugs.
    By Andy W. in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: June 23rd, 2007, 09:10 AM

Search tags for this page

brazos county drug testing

,

brazos county probation drug test

,

brazos county probation drug tests

,

can you carry a ccw and while taking prescription narcotic

,

ccw drug test

,

ccw while on prescription pain medications

,

colorado concealed carry drug test

,
concealed carry drugs
,
drug screening for brazos county probation
,

need vicoden in brazos county

,

wv concealed carry medication

,

wv concealed carry test

Click on a term to search for related topics.