Judge grants medical pot user concealed weapon permit

An interesting case.

Should the she have be denied for the reasons the sheriff stated?

those potheads are a dangerous group! :smoke:

on how many criminals using guns also used alcohol v how many were pot users. Winters is an idiot. Disarm the chronic alcohol users, not the passive pot users.

The former substance is a much more accurate predictor of violent behavior. Heard a report on radio years ago (NPR) about studies in prison populations. Most in for violent crimes were also drinkers. The pot users were mostly in ... for using pot, and not a dangerous prison population.

I wondered about that, knowing prisons 'sell' worker hours (prison labor) to lots of businesses. A bunch of passive pot users V a bunch of real violent people who used booze... Hmmmm, which is a more profitable group to have available to contract out for labor? Suddenly I understood a lot more about the War on Drugs in Corporate America.

need to be screened for mental heath issues as well as drug use including antidepressant medications. Having said that I dont trust pot smokers packing concealed handguns either. May as well allow drunk driving while they are at it.

That sounds like a great idea, not. Don't you complain about high suicide rates? It sounds like you are trying to get them to increase. I think you need to change your screen name to Big_Brother.


David

What constitutes a "chronic"? Someone who drinks 4-5 beers a day? What percentage of "chronic" alcohol users engage in violent behavior so that a reasonable person could conclude that such use is a "...much more accurate predictor of violent behavior"? While I take no issue with your statement that violent criminals are also drinkers, you cannot conclude, therefore, that most drinkers are violent criminals.

Prohibition has used this sleight-of-hand logic to justify whatever it is being prohibited. It goes in the same category of "pot is the stepping stone to heroin." There is just as much "causal" link between drinking milk and heroin, eating fried chicken and heroin and, yes, drinking beer and heroin. Yet, the number of marijuana users (tens of millions) do not take heroin (some l-l.5 million users). Most folks agree: the stepping stone to heroin is heroin.

But let's just boil it down:

drunk with a gun

__ good thing?
__ bad thing?

Cast your vote.

But thats probably because the Viagra didn't work, after pounding down so many cans of beer, so they had to shoot something off instead :-)

Sober citizen with a gun

___good thing?
___bad thing?

Cast your vote.

There are a lot more categories of PEOPLE (which would include citizens, I guess) than "drunk" and "sober".


__ Sober individual engaged in a campaign of violence and harassment against his present or former intimate partner ... with a gun?

__ Sober individual suffering from undiagnosed serious depressive or delusional illness ... with a gun?

__ Sober individual who lives a quiet and uneventful life until one night a teenaged neighbour rings his doorbell in the course of a Hallowe'en prank ... with a gun?

__ Sober individual who is elderly and disabled who discovers someone washing clothes in her home who turns out to be her sister's godson ... with a gun?

__ Sober individual who is an elected member of a state legislature and yet has no regard for the law or public safety ... with a gun?

__ Sober individual with no criminal record engaged in organized criminal activities ... with a gun?


Can you spot any of them when they pass you on the street? When you look in your crystal ball? Can you predict which person who crosses their path will end up dead?

But you feel free to offer your, er, thoughts.

Tuna sandwich with a pickle

__ good thing?
__ bad thing?


High wind with rain

__ good thing?
__ bad thing?


Blue jeans with patches

__ good thing?
__ bad thing?


Piano with a stool

__ good thing?
__ bad thing?


Red sports car with fuzzy dice

__ good thing?
__ bad thing?


Teenager with a baseball bat

__ good thing?
__ bad thing?


Red with blue polka dots

__ good thing?
__ bad thing?


Elephant with castle

__ good thing?
__ bad thing?


Ham with eggs

__ good thing?
__ bad thing?



Step right up.

A canadian with an attitude


__ good thing?
__ bad thing?

All depends on the attitude ... and the Canadian ...

a marriage proposal?

:toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :silly: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :hi: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast:

n/t

Why are drug users ineligible to possess firearms / carry firearms?

(I mean, the real question is: why does this peaceable passive stoner want to be wearing a firearm around in public ...)


Is it because drug users are considered to be poor risks for violent / impulsive behaviour?

Is it because drug use is considered to imply involvement in criminal activities?


Whether she should be eligible to possess a firearm / be given a permit to carry a firearm kind of depends on the answer to the question.


If it is thought that people who use cannabis are poor risks for violent / impulsive behaviour, it matters not a whit whether she is using it legally, and she should be denied on the same basis any other user.

If it is because drug use is considered to imply involvement in criminal activities, the inference would be wrong in her case, and she should no more be denied than a user of aspirin.


Oh, well, of course the whole question of one jurisdiction in the US permitting cannabis possession while another jurisdiction prohibits it ... that's a whole additional fun layer, and turns the situation into a law school exam question. ;)

Only unlawful drug users, and drug addicts, are ineligible.

I take several prescription drugs every day. I'm not ineligible to have a firearm.

Drug users are not ineligible to possess or carry firearms
Only unlawful drug users, and drug addicts, are ineligible.

Now maybe somebody could answer the question I actually asked.

The reason why unlawful drug users are ineligible is ________________ ?

Why are drug users ineligible to possess firearms / carry firearms?

If you mean to say you MEANT to ask why unlawful drug users are ineligible, why not just say that?

just have no blush reflex. Buffoonery like that, and no little red-cheeked idiotfaceiconthingy to go with.

I am left, as usual, wondering why anyone wants to make him/herself look such a fool.

:rofl:

Find me an error, and we'll see.

Meanwhile, you might try explaining why I would ask:

Why are drug users ineligible to possess firearms / carry firearms?

and be referring to users of prescription drugs, when prescription drug use does not make a person ineligible to possess firearms.

Your only options are:

- you allege that I didn't know that prescription drug use does not make a person ineligible to possess firearms (which would be tantamount to calling me a moron, since only a moron would not know that prescription drug use does not make a person ineligible to possess firearms)

- you allege that I was asking a tricky loaded question of the sort that the brotherhood here is fond of asking (which would call for some sort of explanation of why I was trying to trick someone into telling me why prescription drug use makes a person ineligible to possess firearms when it doesn't)

Your choice. Don't spend too much time making it; you'll look just as ridiculous either way.

Keep spinning!

Your only options are:

- you allege that I didn't know that prescription drug use does not make a person ineligible to possess firearms...

- you allege that I was asking a tricky loaded question...

How about a third option:

YOU FUCKED UP AND WON'T ADMIT IT.

I'm both SO STUPID that I know that prescription drug use does not make a person ineligible to possess firearms and SO DISHONEST that I tried to trick some unsuspecting soul into telling me why prescription drug use makes a person ineligible to possess firearms when it doesn't?

Alrighty then. Just wanted to be clear on that.


The very damned thing is that I was asking a genuine question to which I thought someone might have an answer. Why does drug use make a person ineligible to possess firearms? (Trust me; if I mean "prescription drug", I will say "prescription drug", or, more likely, "medication".)

Is it because drug users are considered to be poor risks for violent / impulsive behaviour?

Is it because drug use is considered to imply involvement in criminal activities?

I guess nobody here has a clue.

Your wording was poorly chosen, to the point where your actual intended meaning was indecipherable.

:rofl:

She did not petition the court for the right to carry while stoned. She petitioned the court to grant her a CHL on the same grounds as anyone else, even though she takes cannabis medicinally for a diagnosed medical condition, as prescribed by a physician, in accordance with state law. One of the most common reasons for such prescription is post-chemotherapy nausea, though her condition is not revealed for medical privacy reasons.

Medicinal cannabis users are not stoners; they are not walking around in a drugged stupor 24/7; they are not "potheads" or wild-eyed crazies; they are normal people who have been prescribed the natural form of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol to treat a medical condition. That's IT. The Feds don't like it that some progressive states have classified cannabis as a medicine.

Those wanting Ms. Willis to be treated differently than, say, a mentally competent adult with a clean record who has an oxycodone prescription for back pain, have absorbed a bit much of the "Reefer Madness" mentality, I think.