CCW Vs medical mary jane

This is a discussion on CCW Vs medical mary jane within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Hagphish Also, isn't that flight study over 20 years old? So? Does that make the observation invalid?...

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 91

Thread: CCW Vs medical mary jane

  1. #61
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,573

    Yes, it is 20 years old, so what's the point

    Quote Originally Posted by Hagphish View Post

    Also, isn't that flight study over 20 years old?
    So? Does that make the observation invalid?

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #62
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    And I'll I'm saying is the flipside, that someone unimpaired can absolutely make the call, particularly if the call is made with competent doctor input. It's a matter of dosing. If done right, a given dosing won't magically become impairing at some unknown time in future; rather, it'll be avoided, because of the dosing specifically formulated to avoid that. Speak with a competent doc. This isn't rocket science.
    There is no dosing for illegal drugs. Any doctor that 'prescribes' any illegal drug is guilty of malpractice and is demonstrably incompetent.

  4. #63
    Ex Member Array Oldskoolfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In a secured zone.
    Posts
    464
    Call a lawyer.

  5. #64
    Senior Member Array Landric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kansas City Metro
    Posts
    807
    This sounds to me like a great way to get in trouble. Even if marijuana is legal for medical uses, its still illegal under federal law. Under federal law its illegal for a drug user to possess a firearm (remember the question about that on the 4473?). Since the feds do not recognize marijuana as legal under any circumstances (in fact it is a schedule I controlled substance, the worst kind, under federal law), that makes someone who is using it, perfectly legally under state law, a user of illegal drugs in the eyes of the feds.

    Now, its unlikely that the feds would get involved in a prosecution under normal circumstances, but they could choose to make an example of someone.
    -Landric

    "The Engine could still smile...it seemed to scare them" -Felix

  6. #65
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,573

    Feds won't get involved???

    Quote Originally Posted by Landric View Post
    This sounds to me like a great way to get in trouble. Even if marijuana is legal for medical uses, its still illegal under federal law. Under federal law its illegal for a drug user to possess a firearm (remember the question about that on the 4473?).

    Now, its unlikely that the feds would get involved in a prosecution under normal circumstances, but they could choose to make an example of someone.
    Earlier this year, US Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the federal government would no longer prosecute marijuana offenses that are legal under state medical marijuana laws.

    Whether that policy would extend to prosecution of perjury on the 4473 is problematic.*

    I think due to the new policy the issue is really at its heart a state issue, and the answer depends precisely on two things: the exact wording of the state's CHL application and carry laws, and the exact wording of its medical weed law.

    Anyway, as for the advice of go see an attorney, the sad truth of the matter is it would likely cost a fortune to get a formal legal opinion (if you could get one which I doubt), and even that wouldn't protect your friend from prosecution if a DA had a different view from the attorney who gave the opinion. It isn't a defense that, "my lawyer told me it was O.K." (Learned that the hard way in a civil case.)

    Prudence, common sense, caution, and all that good stuff would suggest that unless o.p.'s friend wants to be the test case, he shouldn't combine his prescription use of weed and concealed carry.

    _________________________________________
    *No perjury if form was filled out and gun was purchased prior to taking up the weed.

  7. #66
    VIP Member Array automatic slim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    The western edge of The Confederacy
    Posts
    2,198

    No, you have it wrong.........

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Just thinking out loud here. If you are right, that is quite an indictment of our nations doctors isn't it? Do you really think that medical doctors in general are so irresponsible that they would do what you suggest? Some are of course. But I think your slippery slope argument is a bit unfair, and quite an insult to physicians.
    What I'm saying, is that the list of illnesses for which it can be prescribed for continually grows. It will start out with serious illnesses to get it passed in the legislature, then once it's law, the list of approved illnesses grows and grows until it includes practically everything, tooth aches, etc. You get the idea. I'm sure the majority of doctors simply adher to the list.
    Medical Marijuana is just a back door approach to legalization.
    "First gallant South Carolina nobly made the stand."
    Edge of Darkness

  8. #67
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,004
    ^ Let alone unapproved uses. Consider Pfizer, which is in the news recently for distributing a drug for purposes ranging from "stomach flu to flatulence and warts," a drug which was originally approved for one purpose. Pfizer wanted increased revenues, so they pushed it as being applicable to many problems. Modern snake oil. There's money in snake oil. So long as FDA's essentially working for the pharmaceutical industry to smooth the path, we'll get what we get.

    EDIT: My knowledge of how pharmaceuticals is used for other uses is limited, though I know my docs and others do it where appropriate. My understanding of the recent Pfizer/FDA news item is that it's' the advertising of those other uses that got the FDA's knickers in a bunch. Hopefully that's accurate, though it still doesn't change the nature of the FDA's frequent cozy relationships with big pharma.
    Last edited by ccw9mm; September 6th, 2009 at 03:45 PM.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  9. #68
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by automatic slim View Post
    What I'm saying, is that the list of illnesses for which it can be prescribed for continually grows.
    Marijuana is an illegal drug. It is not approved to treat any condition and it cannot be legally prescribed.

  10. #69
    Member Array glock45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    384
    Just a question, will blood / drug testing be invariably a part of the processing of an SD shooting scene? Or does this depend on the officer's discretion if he suspects the shooter is under the influence?
    G21SF, G30, G36, Ruger SP101 DAO, S&W 642

  11. #70
    Senior Member Array Landric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kansas City Metro
    Posts
    807
    Unless the shooter consents to some kind of test, the test would have to be based on a search warrant, and in the event that a search warrant were issued, it would have to be based on probable cause that the shooter was under the influence of some impairing substance.

    Basically, if you are not under the influence of something and asked to take a test, its a toss up whether you should or not. It might help your case, provided that no one at the lab messes anything up. Obviously, if one is under the influence of something, consenting to a test will do nothing but hurt.
    -Landric

    "The Engine could still smile...it seemed to scare them" -Felix

  12. #71
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,573
    Quote Originally Posted by Landric View Post
    It might help your case, provided that no one at the lab messes anything up.
    In employment testing the error rate for samples actually tested has been reported to run about 50 per 100,000.* About 1% of all tests are positive. Therefore, put another way, of every 1000 positives, 50 (or 5%) are false positives. Do you want a 1 in 2000 chance of being found positive by accident? I don't. Someone else may be willing.

    There have recently been a couple of scandals involving crime labs in Texas, I think both in Houston and the Dallas area.

    Prudence would suggest that it is not a good idea to volunteer a sample. As Landric wrote, if they have probable cause they will get a warrant. Leave it at that.
    ______________________________________________-
    *I don't have a citation. I think I got that info at a Drug and Alcohol testing Industry Association meeting several years back.

  13. #72
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    In employment testing the error rate for samples actually tested has been reported to run about 50 per 100,000.* About 1% of all tests are positive. Therefore, put another way, of every 1000 positives, 50 (or 5%) are false positives.
    Your 'put another way' is not consistent with the assertion. The error rate includes false negatives, as well.

    The correct calculation is that the error rate is .0005 and since .01 are deemed positive, the chances of of a false positive is .000005. Miniscule. Most of the errors are false negatives given the numbers you provided.

    Naturally, the information given is insuficient for determining actucal false positive and false negative numbers. But there is no reason to believe your number as it is inconsistent with the facts.

    Of course, the threshold is all important for determining test positives. I understand that employment testing has less stringent thresholds therefore more drug addicts probably slip through.

  14. #73
    Senior Member Array Tom357's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Richmond VA
    Posts
    1,068
    Quote Originally Posted by denverbear View Post
    My friend tells me that he would only use at nite when he goes to bed to help him sleep better....that being said it does stay in system about 30 days I hear so would he be considered under the influence even during the day when he has not used it since the previous nite....I mean how long does being under the influence last?? and are you really ok when you have not used it in 12 hours or so??
    Marijuana has been legalized, for specific medical needs, in a number of states. Marijuana, taken by smoking, is not legal at the Federal level. For firearms and Federal forms, this is key.

    Synthetic THC, taken in pill/capsule form, has been approved for use in the US since 1985, as the drugs Nabilone and Marinol, to treat nausea from chemotherapy. In 1992, Marinol was also approved for the treatment of anorexia and weight loss from AIDS. This is as legal as any other drug you get from a pharmacy, but it is almost as expensive as some of my transplant drugs.

    THC and human performance fact sheet from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

    Adopted rules for medical marijuana in Colorado as of 8/30/2009.

    Gonzalez vs Raich (GONZALES V. RAICH (03-1454) 545 U.S. 1 (2005) 352 F.3d 1222, vacated and remanded.) The SCOTUS decision, on a 9th Circuit appeal, was that Federal Law against marijuana trumps the California Compassionate Use Act. Currently, it appears that smoked marijuana is an illegal drug for the purposes of purchasing a handgun or applying for concealed carry, regardless of what the State allows. Even if you've got a legal Colorado card authorizing you to smoke for medicinal benefit. Marinol is legal.

    Hopefully, some of this info helps, but your friend needs to know what form of THC he's going to take, and he needs to talk to a lawyer familiar with medical marijuana and firearms laws in Colorado.

    The NHTSA fact sheet discusses some of the differences in performance and impairment between smoked marijuana and Marinol.
    Last edited by Tom357; September 7th, 2009 at 06:10 AM. Reason: added link to Gonzalez vs Raich
    - Tom
    You have the power to donate life.

  15. #74
    VIP Member Array automatic slim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    The western edge of The Confederacy
    Posts
    2,198

    Wanna bet?

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Marijuana is an illegal drug. It is not approved to treat any condition and it cannot be legally prescribed.
    Right next door to you in New Mexico they passed a medical marijuana law. All you need is certification by a physician that you suffer from Glaucoma or Cancer to legally use it. They are currently trying to expand the number of illnesses it can be used for.
    Certified users are legally able to grow as much as they want at home, (gets around that "with intent to distribute" clause).
    The state is currently trying to "license" growers who will not be prosecuted for the acres they intend to grow. Of course there is no tracking system for determining how much is sold to licensed users and how much will be peddled on the street.
    There have been incidents of individuals being caught with growing large quantities being released after they find a doctor that will certify them as needing it for medical purposes.
    "First gallant South Carolina nobly made the stand."
    Edge of Darkness

  16. #75
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by automatic slim View Post
    Right next door to you in New Mexico they passed a medical marijuana law. All you need is certification by a physician that you suffer from Glaucoma or Cancer to legally use it. They are currently trying to expand the number of illnesses it can be used for.
    I'm sure you are aware of the Supremacy clause in the Constitution. No state law can override a Federal law. Possietion of marijuana is illegal everywhere in the United Staes state laws not withstanding.

    Any 'doctor' that circumvents the prescription process of approved drugs is unethical and incompetent and also conspiring to commit a felony.

    Certified users are legally able to grow as much as they want at home, (gets around that "with intent to distribute" clause).
    So, the state condones drug addics break the law. How does that support your point that it is illegal?

    There have been incidents of individuals being caught with growing large quantities being released after they find a doctor that will certify them as needing it for medical purposes.
    Drug addicts will stop at nothing to get their next fix.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

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. Medical Mary-Jane
    By jp4240 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: December 12th, 2009, 06:44 AM
  2. Britain: British Medical Association plans to "tag" medical records of gun owners
    By Miggy in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: September 3rd, 2009, 03:16 PM
  3. Hanoi Jane's At It Again
    By Captain Crunch in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: August 1st, 2005, 07:33 PM
  4. The Death Of Mary White
    By QKShooter in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: July 24th, 2005, 01:45 PM
  5. My Antique PLAIN JANE COLT Pic.
    By QKShooter in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: March 4th, 2005, 05:24 PM

Search tags for this page

ccw drug test

,
colorado ccw drug test
,
powered by mybb alcoholic addiction
,

powered by mybb colorado state

,
powered by mybb denver drug recall lawyers
,
powered by mybb drug addiction
,

powered by mybb drug recall

,

powered by mybb drug recall attorney

,
powered by mybb drug recall lawyers
,
powered by mybb medical association
,

powered by mybb missouri drug recall attorney

,

powered by mybb texas state

Click on a term to search for related topics.