Saw this coming years ago. Doesn’t make it right, but it’s still not a surprise. This is another one that will need to get figured out in the courts, along with permanent loss of 2A rights for non-violent felonies.

And honestly, guys, the strength thing gets brought up every time we talk about weed, but it’s totally immaterial. Trust me. Especially in the context of this thread. What it comes down to is that you can take one puff and be over the moon whereas before, you would have to smoke a Cheech & Chong traffic cone-sized spliff to get that high. It’s like the difference between a sip of beer and a shot of Everclear - I never see anyone talk about the danger of liquor over beer on this forum with the reasoning being that one is so much stronger than the other.

We had 2 wrong way drivers resulting in head on collisions resulting in fatalities 2 days in a row on the same stretch of I-696. Local rumor mill has it that both drivers going the wrong way had been using Pot. So, when is the DOJ going to go after someone who smokes Pot and owns a car.

Personally there are two things that have been made legal here in Michigan that I absolutely LOATHE.

One is pot because the Potheads do not believe they are "impaired when high" and there is no way to convince them it's a dangerous activity to drive while high. So people are dying because this shit is everywhere.

The second is online Gambling. It's an addiction that just wrecks families and now we have made it legal to gamble many thousands of dollars away while sitting on the couch in the family room.

Invariably, when the subject of cannabis comes up in the forum- no matter what the context- the conversation always turns to the physical effects of the substance.

It seems to me that if we reach a point where all or almost all 50 states legalize marijuana, the Federal government will have to make appropriate adjustments. This is the same government which is allowing Fentanyl to pour over our southern border like it's nothing at all. This is the same government whose legislators have three-martini lunches and go back to Capitol Hill lit up like Christmas trees.

We all know why they're doing this, and it has nothing to do with enforcing drug laws.

Some poor schlub who's worked hard all day and just wants to sit in front of his TV and smoke a joint- shit, leave him alone.

Regarding impairment sufficient to disallow operating a motor vehicle- sure, you bet that's a real thing. What is needed and it seems to me what will be required is a reliable field-testing kit for cannabis intoxication which can be used by the police like the breathalyzer is used for alcohol. The problem is THC stays in the bloodstream longer- long after a buzz is gone.

Lastly, all this "moral stance" stuff from some people about how cannabis is evil- yeah, 1965 called. If you really wanted to do society a favor in that respect, get rid of all alcohol- all of it, because it's far more damaging to the human body and far more damaging to society and families than weed will ever be. But, you see, they tried that a century ago, and not only did they not get rid of alcohol, they made the problem worse. The same goes for cannabis. Just leave people alone.

Only the blind didn't see this coming.

Feds love the taxes on MJ and do not hold states accountable but will hold LEGAL users of MJ, purchased through a state dispensary which the feds will not shut down for breaking federal crimes.

So my question; how does the feds get the buyer info from a dispensary, which they do not shut for being against federal law, and use said info to prosecute gun owners for breaking federal law(s) by being a customer of said dispensary?

Poisoned fruit?

I do not see this passing the sniff in a court of law but it is definitely going to cost some gun owners big time in the process.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Just leave people alone.

This ^^^^^

^^^^ that’s an interesting question which was asked on the last page. How do the feds k ow if you’re into weed. Never been to a dispensary either but kinda curious now to find out if they take your data to make a purchase.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
If you really wanted to do society a favor in that respect, get rid of all alcohol- all of it, because it's far more damaging to the human body and far more damaging to society and families than weed will ever be. But, you see, they tried that a century ago, and not only did they not get rid of alcohol, they made the problem worse. The same goes for cannabis. Just leave people alone.

Amen.

quote:

Originally posted by ugeesta:
^^^^ that’s an interesting question which was asked on the last page. How do the feds k ow if you’re into weed. Never been to a dispensary either but kinda curious now to find out if they take your data to make a purchase.

Driver's license scanners at the door to get in and again at the counter when you pay. Cameras.

People legally buy wine, whiskey, beer and such as gifts. They cannot pick up some bud as a surprise for their toking friends or family?

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Just leave people alone.

Amen!
It is legal to make poor choices with alcohol. It is legal to make poor choices with caffeine. While I am personally anti-drug, I think the government goes way to far worrying about what people put in their own bodies.

Pretty sure any lawyer, anyone asked, would have warned them that this was coming.

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
Saw this coming years ago. Doesn’t make it right, but it’s still not a surprise. This is another one that will need to get figured out in the courts, along with permanent loss of 2A rights for non-violent felonies.

And honestly, guys, the strength thing gets brought up every time we talk about weed, but it’s totally immaterial. Trust me. Especially in the context of this thread. What it comes down to is that you can take one puff and be over the moon whereas before, you would have to smoke a Cheech & Chong traffic cone-sized spliff to get that high. It’s like the difference between a sip of beer and a shot of Everclear - I never see anyone talk about the danger of liquor over beer on this forum with the reasoning being that one is so much stronger than the other.

That is the way I see the strength question, but it isn't the point of the thread.

Maybe it’s time we make senators and congressmen pass a breathalyzer and urine test before voting. Hell, make them submit to randoms also. Oh, and teachers too! We don’t want irresponsible people being responsible for shaping young impressionable minds.

quote:

Regarding impairment sufficient to disallow operating a motor vehicle- sure, you bet that's a real thing. What is needed and it seems to me what will be required is a reliable field-testing kit for cannabis intoxication which can be used by the police like the breathalyzer is used for alcohol. The problem is THC stays in the bloodstream longer- long after a buzz is gone.

There are already oral swab test kits that can determine if one is under the influence vs. simply having thc in your system. Where I work, we have oral kits that have about a 6 hour window to detect after last usage. I know folks that smoke weed that got high the night before a test the following day that passed easily. THC that has been metabolized is not detected by the kit isn’t the same as what is detected by, say, urinalysis, blood, or follicle tests.

As many ha em pointed out, this has nothing to do with sobriety vs. intoxication. This is about scooping up anyone they can to charge with possession along with weapons. It’s an agenda. I worked for years in the federal system and had many cases where someone was in possession of marijuana and a firearm and not ONCE did the AUSA push for a felony charge. The democRATs have been waiting to do this, just like charging granny for being at the capital on January 6th. The assholes are playing with fire. Again.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
That is the way I see the strength question, but it isn't the point of the thread.

It isn't, no, but I figured I would address it since others were beginning to go down that road. I'd also far prefer people drive stoned instead of drunk, but that's a hard sell here. Any time weed gets brought up here, those are people's first arguments that seem, I suppose, unassailable. Any seasoned stoner is going to laugh at either one, but then again, we laugh at people saying stuff like they don't want to take our hunting guns but nobody needs an AR because it's too powerful and it's a weapon of war, etc. The "driving stoned" argument goes nowhere with me in a society where every other driver I see is looking down at a phone in their lap like nobody knows what that is. "I don't like smelling weed on the road" gets mentioned all the time, but I guarantee for every whiff of it you encounter, you've been within collision range of a hundred or a thousand people playing with their damn phones.

I think there's an achievable, sensible balance in society to be had as far as not infringing on people's rights to live how they want and preserving the public safety, but if we're going to pick one to favor, it's freedom over safety for me every time. I think if people want to come home from work and fire up a fat boy, or throw a party and have a bong set up in a back room, I think it's none of the federal government's business and it's a crime that those people need to fear having their guns taken away forever and being put in prison because those same people also want to be able to defend their homes and their lives. This is America, we shouldn't have to choose between having the capability to protect our families and being able to get impaired in a way the liquor lobby doesn't approve of. That shouldn't be a choice we have to make.