Mary Jane

[BigBoxaJunk]

I Tax it to a free-thee-well and use the cash to pay down the national debt. We will be debt free in less than a decade.

Thanks, I needed a good laugh this morning before heading out into the cold.

 

[fullmetaljesus]

I wouldn't see that being a problem.........it says UNLAWFUL user. Really no different than the 10,000's of people who are prescribed pain killers but not considered dope heads because a Dr. prescribed it, and still check no.

Always cracks me up when I hear older people talk about "these young dope addicts" when most of them are taking and addicted to pills. You can have 2 guys, taking 120 pain killers a month....one gets them at a Dr. and the other gets them on the streets....but the one who gets them from the Dr. is not an addict. Never figured that out.

Problem here is it's a federal form, weed is federally illegal everywhere.

In regards to that form you can't honestly say you lawful user.

 

[2A_Tom]

Amazing to me all of the folk who seem to know so much about this subject who are supposedly gun owners. Some having seemingly outed themselves as pot aficionados and users or very close to those who use.

 

[indiucky]

Amazing to me all of the folk who seem to know so much about this subject who are supposedly gun owners. Some having seemingly outed themselves as pot aficionados and users or very close to those who use.

[video]http://teamcoco.com/video/bill-maher-is-not-a-proud-gun-owner[/video]

Maher told Playboy he has “two guns. They’re for protection. We live in a gun country, even Los Angeles. I’m not expecting anything to happen, but I want to be ready for it. So I have a lot of security measures at my house. If somebody gets into my bedroom, wow, they really did a lot to get there. They got past gates, bodyguards, dogs. If I have to shoot somebody in my bedroom, that was a commando raid on par with the SEALs getting Bin Laden. My gun is my last line of defense.”
Playboy’s response: “It’s strange to think of you as a gun lover.”
Maher said, “I do not love my gun. That’s the…problem with these Second Amendment people. They love guns. For them, it’s not just that guns should be available; it’s that they’re seen as awesome. They go into Chipotle with their rifles. They go on dates with their guns. They take selfies with their guns. They teach their kids to kill with them. They give them as gifts. It’s a sickness.


​

 

[BugI02]

I know the 'organic' crowd might object, but my biggest objection to MJ is the duration of effect and associated unknowns as far as mental/motor deficiency therein. If science could engineer a version of THC that had a half life similar to alcohol (or caffeine) I would be more behind legalization

Cue the objections because you couldn't grow your own in 3 ... 2 ... 1 (maybe there could be a home extraction kit, like home brewing)

 

[HoughMade]

Problem here is it's a federal form, weed is federally illegal everywhere.

In regards to that form you can't honestly say you lawful user.

This.

...and while the painkiller problem is very, very real, not even close to "most" people of any age are on painkillers.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

I-70 Traffic Stop Yields Large Marijuana Seizure

When I had cancer, that looks like a weeks worth of what I used.

Hey, if you're going to be having cancer, you should have to sign a waiver...

 

[CHCRandy]

This.

...and while the painkiller problem is very, very real, not even close to "most" people of any age are on painkillers.

Counselor,

The form don't say just marijuana and painkillers. My example was based on pain killers, since I have first hand knowledge of individuals who are prescribed pain killers and hold FFL.

I would say 70% is more than 30%. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-shows-70-percent-of-americans-take-prescription-drugs/ (This is an old study, can only imagine it is way more now)

Can you tell me the difference between a guy who is addicted to pills because his Dr prescribed them and a guy who is addicted to them but can't get a prescription? I know the key word is unlawful....but in reality, that is horse caca. Why do we criticize one but have sympathy for another? You can put lipstick on the pig, but it is still a pig.

 

[HoughMade]

Counselor,

The form don't say just marijuana and painkillers. My example was based on pain killers, since I have first hand knowledge of individuals who are prescribed pain killers and hold FFL.

I would say 70% is more than 30%. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-shows-70-percent-of-americans-take-prescription-drugs/ (This is an old study, can only imagine it is way more now)

Can you tell me the difference between a guy who is addicted to pills because his Dr prescribed them and a guy who is addicted to them but can't get a prescription? I know the key word is unlawful....but in reality, that is horse caca. Why do we criticize one but have sympathy for another? You can put lipstick on the pig, but it is still a pig.

The form says "unlawful user or addicted". The law includes both and "addicted" stands alone and is not modified by "illegal", so, legally, there is no difference between an illegal user and a user addicted to drug obtained legally.

As for that linked article, sure most people take prescription drugs, but I'm pretty sure no one cares about a Z-Pak, lisinopril or lipitor...none of which are addictive.

 

[Route 45]

Amazing to me all of the folk who seem to know so much about this subject who are supposedly gun owners. Some having seemingly outed themselves as pot aficionados and users or very close to those who use.

Amazing how many budding Junior ATF Agents we have on this forum as well.

 

[HoughMade]

Amazing how many budding Junior ATF Agents we have on this forum as well.

Junior, senior...whatever....you may be surprised with the number of ATF agents who take a virtual stroll through here.

 

[shootersix]

Pot only made me sleepy, hungry, and stupid. I can do all those things , unaided.
Fat drunk and stoopid is no way to go through life, son.

View attachment 62540

 

[churchmouse]

Junior, senior...whatever....you may be surprised with the number of ATF agents who take a virtual stroll through here.

No I would not actually.
Yes, there are a few members as well.

 

[churchmouse]

Amazing to me all of the folk who seem to know so much about this subject who are supposedly gun owners. Some having seemingly outed themselves as pot aficionados and users or very close to those who use.

Grew up in the age of Aquarius. All this pretty much became the norm then.

 

[indiucky]

Grew up in the age of Aquarius. All this pretty much became the norm then.

Dennis Hopper back in the day......

 

[DarkRose]

I'm on the fence with this one...
I see the revenue point very clearly... Also if it was made federally legal then the question on the 4473 is null and void as it's no longer "unlawful" use.

Had a department manager years ago (one of my best managers ever) and we'd BS in the office after most of the early people left (flexible hours) and he wasn't a user, had never used, and had no intention of using... but what he said (paraphrasing) was that he would much rather have an employee come in on Monday after they'd smoked up all weekend than someone come in who was hungover from being on a bender all weekend. The pothead doesn't show outward effects once they're not high, but hangovers are a witch sometimes... Employee grumpy, irritable, sick, headache, light sensitive, noise sensitive, uncoordinated, etc.

I'm in agreement for better testing and better limits. I had friends all through high school and working career that smoked, did their jobs, did the family thing, whatever. Weed shows up in the bloodstream long after the effects are gone... Until they can find a threshold limit for testing that reliably shows if the user is actually still actively impaired, I say they shouldn't legalize, or you're going to have a further burden on the system of people that are arrested for DUI or whatever because they smoked recently (depending on your definition) but were no longer actually impaired physically or mentally... That just nullifies the whole argument about strain on the system. It may be less of a long-term strain (actual prison time, etc.), but more of a short term strain (booking, processing, testing, investiagtion, hearings, etc.), but still an overload of the system.

If it were federally legal would I try it? I dunno, heard good things about it's effect on Crohns Disease (which I have), but illegal drugs haven't ever been my thing or had any interest from me so I've never had the inclination to try anything. I don't even drink on a regular basis so the appeal from the "feel good" standpoint isn't there. My Crohns is under control pretty well, so the appeal from the "feel better medically" standpoint only comes up when I have a flare... So still a maybe personally.

Get testing straightened out, get legal issues straightened out, get clear lines about not losing freedoms based on legal use of a legal product enacted, and I see a potential for more good than harm. Or maybe not so much good, but much less harm.

Side note: Has anyone seen what just happened in Hawaii and PA? Gun owners being asked to turn in firearms (in Hawaii they were sent letters because there's a state firearm registry) based on possessing a medical marijuana card... I know some medical users can abuse, but on the whole I don't think that's a huge widespread issue. Federal legalization COULD eliminate that. In contrast there's the whole confiscation of guns that was attempted because of needing a proxy for medicaid payments or whatever (fuzzy on the details because I haven't seen that story recently.) Which is nowhere close to an illegal activity or illegal substance...

Apologies if it's a little rambling but I just woke up, earlier than needed, lol.

 

[2A_Tom]

It seems to me that words typed on INGO by a member were once used against him in a court of law by another member.

Just sayin' people might be better served by discretion than disclosure.

 

[CHCRandy]

I have a few close friends/customers who work for ATF and DEA. Them guys lay kind of low but are as normal as any of us. Hell, the one guy I knew for 20 years and just knew his profession as a "cop". One day I was sitting at my house and phone rang and it said "DEA Indianapolis", I reluctantly answered and it was my buddy needing work done. I went by his house later and told him about caller id saying DEA, he says "Yeah, I have been a DEA agent for over 30 years"...I about fell over. I won't go into detail on his last assignment before retirement, but I can tell you there are very few men who would have done what he done. As he told me about his last assignment (which lasted over 2 years with no contact with is family), the hair stood up on my neck....big nads. I never realized until that day what exactly goes into trying to keep our country safe. Kudos to them guys.

 

[Leadeye]

The bureau of ATFE&MJ and anything else they can tack on. I wonder if they will call it an MJ base and what the term for the outlaw growers will be instead of "moonshiners". Moonplanters maybe?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Theres a lot of far right wing republicans on this board. There’s also a lot of libertarians. Those views on weed are typically completely different.

I don't see where they are necessarily mutually exclusive. Libertarianism should lead to minimal imposition on personal liberty. Conservatism should lead to strict adherence to the Constitution, which provides no authority whatsoever for the federal government to involve itself in drug use aside from interstate commerce, which is an authority to regulate (meaning in 1787-speak meaning to facilitate commerce, not control it) commerce, not prohibit it. It seems that both paths lead to the same destination regardless of what the conservative may personally feel about using drugs.