Surrender Your Guns, Police Tell Hawaiian Medical Marijuana Patients

a reply to: Blaine91555


There is no doubt about it, but you might be surprised with LE. I think they are getting just as tired of dealing with it (on such a large scale now, especially) as citizens are tired of getting hassled over it. I am actually happy this crosses ideological boundaries, because if the left/right could stand united on more fronts imagine what could be accomplished?

I not only support the right to own/carry firearms, but I also support a patient's right to decide the best medical options for them. I don't see what the problem is with trying a minimally (if at all) addictive substance with no overdose potential, before trying the potent/addictive/potentially dangerous narcotics.

I stand with anyone who wants to reduce the impact of government, and stop substituting legislation for good judgment. We can always punish people after the fact, but taking away their ability to make adult choices will have some negative impacts on society. I think it is part of the reason people are increasingly making bad choices, perhaps because they're used to the government making all the choices for them (especially new post-school age adults).

Government IMO is never a good substitute to family values, cultural values and common sense/decision making.

originally posted by: Blaine91555

It's crossed the Left / Right line, so I suspect the Fed's in the end will stay out of it to favor States Rights. I'd imagine there will be a lot of push back against Hawaii from it's own legal medicinal users with national support for their plight.

The feds will have to get involved if the states are violating Constitutional rights.

a reply to: JBurns

Yes, and the law should protect medical Cannabis users as it is a prescribed medication, not the least bit illegal, and does not cause addiction. In that context, the substance should not differ from any other prescription drug on the market.

Now...if it were the laboratory produced, FDA regulated version of Cannabis that people can be charged per pill for, they'd have no issue with those patients having firearms in their possession. Because they'd be taking the overpriced poison and toeing the line, and that's what good little sheep do.

a reply to: tigertatzen

Now...if it were the laboratory produced, FDA regulated version of Cannabis that people can be charged per pill for, they'd have no issue with those patients having firearms in their possession. Because they'd be taking the overpriced poison and toeing the line, and that's what good little sheep do.

Well stated, IMHO

I hadn't thought of that, but it really begs the question of exactly how they justify one as "medically useful" while keeping the other schedule I... typical hypocrisy by big government in collusion with big pharma/big business

I can't begin to express how great it is to see how many people are frankly awake these days.

In the last 1-2 years, it seems the awareness level in this country has gone from "MTV, pop culture, sports, Hollwood, Kim Kardassian, Taylor Swift, face in cell phone 24/7" (awareness level was: 0/10) to what we see almost daily now (awareness level is: 8/10)

a reply to: DBCowboy

Not really since it's already decided.

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.

LINK to above.

9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals says in decision that Congress reasonably concluded that marijuana and other drug use 'raises the risk of irrational or unpredictable behavior with which gun use should not be associated'

LINK

PDF of the decision.

The 9th Circuit is arguably the most liberal of all the circuit courts. Lynch enshrined it in law.

a reply to: DBCowboy
It is a federal law which is the reason for the confiscation.

It might be notable that the police chief is brand new to the position. None of the chiefs of the other counties (islands) have issued such letters, yet.

a reply to: Phage

a reply to: Blaine91555

Well, crap.

That sucks.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: tigertatzen

Now...if it were the laboratory produced, FDA regulated version of Cannabis that people can be charged per pill for, they'd have no issue with those patients having firearms in their possession. Because they'd be taking the overpriced poison and toeing the line, and that's what good little sheep do.

Well stated, IMHO

I hadn't thought of that, but it really begs the question of exactly how they justify one as "medically useful" while keeping the other schedule I... typical hypocrisy by big government in collusion with big pharma/big business

I can't begin to express how great it is to see how many people are frankly awake these days.

Thank you.

That's why they keep using tactics like this...they throw the gun thing in there and suddenly everyone is so busy freaking out over that, they don't bother to ask questions like these that really need to be addressed.

Not enough people out there are going to take the time to wonder why, if a substance has been deemed a legal medication when obtained by prescription, there should be any continued conflict with existing laws that regulate prescription drugs. Why isn't it being classified as any other prescription pain control method?

Make it seem to be about guns, everyone loses their collective mind and the true agenda remains unseen by the vast majority of the public.

a reply to: tigertatzen

Marijuana is not legal under federal law, for medical purposes or otherwise.

That is the conflict at play here.

a reply to: DBCowboy


I just wish people who claimed to be defenders of civil rights would actually defend civil rights - instead of selectively picking and choosing what they like/dislike. Don't get me wrong, this isn't a partisan thing. There are plenty of people on the left who ardently defend the entire BOR, just as there are those on the right who want to trample them for their own gain/agenda.

Unalienable rights matter, and it is troublesome to see sunshine patriots being made every time an issue involving guns comes up. So many states have outright refused to enforce federal law when it comes to immigration and drug policy (among other issues), and I don't see why the second amendment (the only thing out of those three protected by the constitution) is always the exception.

Anti-gun people need to learn it is possible to dislike something and voice their opinion about it without trying to enact legislation to impact the lives of other people who feel differently.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
All the pot smokers over in Hawaii are about to go gunless.

No they aren't, they just won't be registered now. Which is the result of any gun grab. The guns don't go away, they just become illegal and more dangerous.

Guns won't go away, neither will the weed or the stoners or people who need it for medicinal purposes

I guess start petitioning the lawyers that make the laws for us to start making laws that make sense.

Take both of your faces and combine them into one FFS.

E Pluribus Unum
trahere de capitibus vestris asinos



sorry for cussing

a reply to: JBurns

You're right.

Basically, you're either for rights and freedoms or you aren't.

It doesn't get any simpler than that.

how does possession of such a list, and using it outside of medical necessity, not warrant a massive HIPPA violation in the state of Hawaii????

How does my possession of a card prove my use of marijuana? Yes, its implied. Does that implication mean that I am ceding my rights without due process?

Yeah, we'll see another headline with this being retracted.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Wait a minute...your registration for a medical marijuana card is not protected under HIPPA? Its medically sensitive information that can be (and apparently is) prejudicial. Its the very core of patient rights, the very core of what HIPPA laws are there to protect.

How has this not been challenged by the ACLU?

originally posted by: loveguy
I guess start petitioning the lawyers that make the laws for us to start making laws that make sense.

Take both of your faces and combine them into one FFS.

E Pluribus Unum

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

1) As long as no information about the condition for which marijuana is prescribed is given, there is not necessarily a violation.

2) Well, implied consent works for alcohol roadblocks. Different, I know. But still.

3) Maybe. Or else it will go to court. Which, in Hawaii, would be interesting.

What's to stop states, any states from confiscating firearms if you buy beer or wine or alcohol?

a reply to: DBCowboy

There are, as far as I know, no state or federal laws which would allow them to do so.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Not a clue. I suspect it has to do with the ID's a person needs that they are able to have the list. I'm not sure. I suppose law enforcement would need to have access to the list to verify when someone is pulled over in possession.

As far as federal goes, medicinal marijuana is illegal, so it's not actually HIPPA issue. Again not sure.