Couple of interesting court decisions on drugs and guns.

[Chisco]

The possession of a gun by a marijuana user is a statute thats been around since the late 60s and is rarely ever prosecuted. Most prosecutors have historically rejected the charge unless there are more serious crimes attached. Not enough jail space, prosecutors or investigators to worry with the charge.

[Rich1]

Most states that allow carry, it is still illegal to carry and be under the influence, booze or drugs. This ruling just says what it says. Just because you have a weed card does not mean you cant have a firearm. Just dont get caught stoned and in possession of one.

[1781ccT]

The possession of a gun by a marijuana user is a statute thats been around since the late 60s and is rarely ever prosecuted. Most prosecutors have historically rejected the charge unless there are more serious crimes attached. Not enough jail space, prosecutors or investigators to worry with the charge.

All it takes is an aspiring politician (sheriff, DA) to make that a problem. Same with a power tripping cop, looking for any extra charge to add

Plus, with states like Florida and their user registry, it could be a reason to deny a purchase.

PS lots of states prosecute criminals transporting felony quantities of weed and possession of a gun during the commission of a felony.

[Riccochet]

as an aside, I do think we need an affordable testing solution for acute cannabis intoxication. It would help get anti-cannabis work policies get changed. Currently, employers can still deny employment if THC shows up in a urine or hair sample, but both only reveal a history of use, not current intoxication. Affordable testing for acute intoxication would also be of great benefit to traffic enforcement.

I would argue that testing needs to be able to differentiate between intoxicating and non-intoxicating cannabis products. Not all products get you high, like CBD, but all of them will show a positive on a drug test. This would be especially important for employment. Or, hell, even court cases where someone may be falsely accused of being under the influence.

[Thamelau]

I would argue that testing needs to be able to differentiate between intoxicating and non-intoxicating cannabis products. Not all products get you high, like CBD, but all of them will show a positive on a drug test. This would be especially important for employment. Or, hell, even court cases where someone may be falsely accused of being under the influence.

CBD doesn’t show up on drug tests. If you test positive for weed and have only used CBD products then those products weren’t just cbd.

[D.O.C. 989]

I can find no mention of being intoxicated by anything in the 2nd amendment. No man made rule can overide a God given right that I can find in the 2nd. I guess if you don't believe in God or his given rights then you can state your case for gun control but it also seems to me that would mean you don't believe in our Constitution.

[Axkiker]

CBD doesn’t show up on drug tests. If you test positive for weed and have only used CBD products then those products weren’t just cbd.

I think it depends on the test. Some I believe check for cannaboinds (Spelling) in general which would I think pop for CBD or the delta 9 or whatever stuff.

[yatesville88fan]

I can find no mention of being intoxicated by anything in the 2nd amendment. No man made rule can overide a God given right that I can find in the 2nd. I guess if you don't believe in God or his given rights then you can state your case for gun control but it also seems to me that would mean you don't believe in our Constitution.

Nailed it Sir.

[Transom]

I can find no mention of being intoxicated by anything in the 2nd amendment. No man made rule can overide a God given right that I can find in the 2nd. I guess if you don't believe in God or his given rights then you can state your case for gun control but it also seems to me that would mean you don't believe in our Constitution.

[vatreefarmer]

In Virginia, the background check paperwork specifically asks if you are a MJ user

[Transom]

In Virginia, the background check paperwork specifically asks if you are a MJ user

Never heard of anyone being prosecuted for lying about that question including one prominent individual.

[USMC2112]

12866473[/URL]]Never heard of anyone being prosecuted for lying about that question including one prominent individual.

I believe that you are thinking of Delaware.

[Riccochet]

CBD doesn’t show up on drug tests. If you test positive for weed and have only used CBD products then those products weren’t just cbd.

Yes, it does show up on drug tests. It's a cannabinoid, specifically cannabidiol, which is all the tests are looking for. And depending on the CBD product they can contain trace amounts of delta 8 and 9 THC, though at extremely low levels, not enough to have a psychoactive effect. I'm talking 0.3% or less. But if it's something you take daily for pain, arthritis, sleep aid, etc, it can build up in your system.

I work in healthcare. It's something we've had a lot of discussions around. Since we all are randomly tested, and CBD use cannot be differentiated from marijuana use via testing.

Sadly, I cannot take CBD, which I've found helps reduce my tinitis. If I ever leave healthcare I'm going back to using CBD.

[jejb]

so you're all in for stripping a constitutional right from a guess or assumption?? you got it backwards,, until you can prove the "highness" remains long term or as long as use can be detected you have no basis to be messing with people's rights..

I understand your opinion, I just disagree with you on who has things backwards.

[Thamelau]

I can find no mention of being intoxicated by anything in the 2nd amendment. No man made rule can overide a God given right that I can find in the 2nd. I guess if you don't believe in God or his given rights then you can state your case for gun control but it also seems to me that would mean you don't believe in our Constitution.

I understand the logic you are using here, but I have logical issue with it because we do put limitations on the freedom of religion for example. If my religion involves naughty things with minors and keeping slaves, that isn't going to be protected.

[Ranger519VS]

Im not looking to get this closed. So to try and word it carefully, I believe that many different 2nd amendment issues are unconstitutional. I would site numerous state level items as example. They should not ever get to a point where they end up in court like that.

I welcome your proposal to end the rampant gun violence in this country

[CGWright]

so you're all in for stripping a constitutional right from a guess or assumption?? you got it backwards,, until you can prove the "highness" remains long term or as long as use can be detected you have no basis to be messing with people's rights..

I'm not for that at all. I'm also not for being able to be fired for failing a piss test for something that's legal in my state. But because it's illegal at the federal level that can legally happen right now.

[Thamelau]

I welcome your proposal to end the rampant gun violence in this country

If your outboard is not running and you tell me you want to remove the spark plugs and see if that is going to work, I can tell you from previous experience that isn't going to help without having knowledge of what actually is hurting your engine.

[D.O.C. 989]

I understand the logic you are using here, but I have logical issue with it because we do put limitations on the freedom of religion for example. If my religion involves naughty things with minors and keeping slaves, that isn't going to be protected.

I would submit that the Constitution does cover naughty things with children and slavery in other parts of the Constitution.

[Thamelau]

I would submit that the Constitution does cover naughty things with children and slavery in other parts of the Constitution.

The bill of rights are the first 10 amendments and are considered the "god given rights." One of those is that "The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise."

So any law against naughty things with kids, as long as it is part of a religion, would be analogous to limitations set on firearm ownership. I am just saying that we are drawing a line with the first amendment with no issues but state that it is totally wrong to draw any line in regards to the second amendment. I think the more logical argument would be that you don't agree with the line being proposed and believe it should be set somewhere else, but to say "there should be no lines drawn period" seems either hypocritical if you are ok with the first amendment having a line, or morally and ethically wrong if you believe there should be no line in the 1st amendment.