SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Court rules marijuana users cannot be barred from firearm ownership - result of Bruen ruling
Page 1 2 3 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Court rules marijuana users cannot be barred from firearm ownership - result of Bruen ruling Login/Join 
Member
Picture of dsiets
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by gearhounds:
Once the genie is out of the bottle, it’s never going back inside. Between medical and recreational, we’re already more than half way there. Cigarettes kill almost half a million people in the US each year and they’re going strong. Even with adverse health effects, weed’s here to stay.


I've been seeing warnings I've not seen before on movies. "Smoking". I'm not a smoker but I can't imagine if they've ever tried edit that out like they do language.
 
Posts: 7635 | Location: MI | Registered: May 22, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of dsiets
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
Hey. I am not for banning anything. Are you?

Tell me where I said something like that.


My response is on how you focus the effects on teens who can't legally have access under the law.
 
Posts: 7635 | Location: MI | Registered: May 22, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
[quote]My response is on how you focus the effects on teens who can't legally have access under the law
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In my line of work I see plenty of teens daily. None of them have trouble accessing weed. I doubt it is different in Michigan. I see the poor cognitive functiong and from time to time the brief psychotic episodes. Some of these kids are not wrapped too tight. THC content is much higher and some get themselves in trouble with edibles. Adults are expected to have more sense.
 
Posts: 17811 | Location: Stuck at home | Registered: January 02, 2015Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of dsiets
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
[quote]My response is on how you focus the effects on teens who can't legally have access under the law
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In my line of work I see plenty of teens daily. None of them have trouble accessing weed. I doubt it is different in Michigan. I see the poor cognitive functiong and from time to time the brief psychotic episodes. Some of these kids are not wrapped too tight. THC content is much higher and some get themselves in trouble with edibles. Adults are expected to have more sense.

So you are talking about teens and bringing in the misuse of weed (porn, guns, tobacco, vaping, etc) among them to argue against the use among adults.
I see what you are saying and agree but then you bring in "teens".
quote:
It is certainly addictive and causes problems for teens and their developing brains.

quote:
In American regulation comes later. A good example is the problem with teen vaping.

quote:
In my line of work I see plenty of teens daily. None of them have trouble accessing weed. I doubt it is different in Michigan. I see the poor cognitive functiong and from time to time the brief psychotic episodes. Some of these kids are not wrapped too tight.

You're clearly talking about teenage use and not legal adult use. I guess that's where I'm confused.
 
Posts: 7635 | Location: MI | Registered: May 22, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Gracie Allen is my
personal savior!
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
I think we have done insufficient study of the long term effects.

For a long time the people who insisted it was the devil's weed refused to let research be done except under a handful of people (the director of whom was always a "true believer") at the University of Mississippi. People who like the stuff, of course, were always eager to prove it was benign but couldn't get legal access to marijuana so that they (in theory) could publish their findings.

Regardless of legalization, wider access for the purpose of producing published research under objective scientific discipline would be a good deal.
 
Posts: 27322 | Location: Deep in the heart of the brush country, and closing on that #&*%!?! roadrunner. Really. | Registered: February 05, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Yew got a spider
on yo head
Picture of DoctorSolo
posted Hide Post
The courts get something right, something that has been a glaring inconsistency on gun-rights, and blatantly obvious to anyone with a pulse and knowledge of prohibition history.

State vs federal vs if voters want it is irrelevant.

The state shouldn't be stripping gun rights for people who smoke a plant, and allow these freedoms to people who alter their consciousness in other more politically correct and severe ways - like Aunt Karen's new fave, vodka and zanex. It was wrong to do so and now they are slightly less wrong.

Yay.
 
Posts: 5276 | Location: Colorado Springs | Registered: April 12, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of sigcrazy7
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
Soon there will hopefully be a ruling that states that a person cannot have a lifetime firearms ban simply for a simple, non-violent felony. If a person has paid their debt to society, and are now allowed to vote, etc, why is the 2A carved out for a lifetime ban? Why should a man in his seventies be prohibited today because he took a stolen car for a joy ride back in 1965, and hasn't had so much as a parking ticket since?
quote:
Originally posted by jljones:
If in fact it truly clears it. A lot of people get these “expungements”, particularly from state democrats. When you actually read the fine print......it’s for voting “Rights” only, and clearly states that there is no implied firearms disabilities expulsion.


Cool. So you are addressing the problem I originally addressed. If a person can vote, then they should have all their rights restored. Thanks for the example.



Demand not that events should happen as you wish; but wish them to happen as they do happen, and you will go on well. -Epictetus
 
Posts: 8292 | Location: Utah | Registered: December 18, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Fighting the good fight
Picture of RogueJSK
posted Hide Post
Oklahoma voters reject legalizing recreational marijuana:

https://apnews.com/article/okl...campaign=position_09
 
Posts: 33704 | Location: Northwest Arkansas | Registered: January 06, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Mr. Peteroniman
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Texas Bob C.:
Like far out man.


Dave's not here...


-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-


All his life he tried to be a good person. Many times, however, he failed.
For after all, he was only human. He wasn't a dog.”
― Charles M. Schulz
 
Posts: 2069 | Location: Florida Panhandle | Registered: June 25, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
quarter MOA visionary
Picture of smschulz
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Oklahoma voters reject legalizing recreational marijuana:

https://apnews.com/article/okl...campaign=position_09


I have mixed emotions on legalizing it.

Nothing about use but what comes with it from increased related crime and never ending government intervention in our lives.

If it were just as simple as it's jut OK (legal) now to use then that would be fine but it never works out that way.
 
Posts: 23536 | Location: Houston, TX | Registered: June 11, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of 71 TRUCK
posted Hide Post
I have said this many times, if people want to make pot legal have the Federal goverment take it off the list of illegal drugs.
Then no more problem with the law baring people using pot from owning a firearm.

I do not like when states decide what laws they either want to enforce or not enforce because the do not agree with them.
I don't like it when the federal goverment decides to either enforce or not enforce the laws they might not like.




The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State



NRA Life Member
 
Posts: 2668 | Location: Central Florida, south of the mouse | Registered: March 08, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Gracie Allen is my
personal savior!
posted Hide Post
Well, Uncah Joe seems to have decided that being quietly anti-pot is his fig leaf of respectability. Still waiting for the results of the review he ordered of marijuana's place on the Schedule - and probably will be when Dr. Jill finally dumps him in a wheelbarrow and has him taken away.
 
Posts: 27322 | Location: Deep in the heart of the brush country, and closing on that #&*%!?! roadrunner. Really. | Registered: February 05, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Blume9mm
posted Hide Post
I fully admit my addiction which any low on the totem pole at BATFE could figure out....

Sig handguns....

I fully support legalizing Marijuana... will give the government more to tax and idjust will gladly pay....


My Native American Name:
"Runs with Scissors"
 
Posts: 4441 | Location: Greenville, SC | Registered: January 30, 2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
The Ice Cream Man
posted Hide Post
A) A friend is researching the effects of THC vaping on 12-15 year olds. It causes measurable brain damage after 4 uses, significant after 4 months.

(These are messed up kids, who get high 4 or more times a week.)

It appears to be more harmful than cocaine, to adolescent minds.

The effects, so far, are still showing on the brains, 10 years after the kids stop.

What they are vaping is VASTLY more potent that what used to be smoked. (Caffeine will kill you PDQ, if you were to ingest much of the pure form.)

B) It smells absolutely disgusting, and every pot head thinks they should be able to smoke wherever they want.

As a group of addicts, they are bizarrely protective of it. No one goes around arguing getting drunk is bad for them, or smoking cigarettes, cocaine, etc.
 
Posts: 6147 | Location: Republic of Ice Cream, Low Country, SC. | Registered: May 24, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Rick Lee
posted Hide Post
Long, but very good read on the issue.

https://www.nationalaffairs.co...onstitution-on-drugs
 
Posts: 3944 | Location: Cave Creek, AZ | Registered: October 24, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Court rules marijuana users cannot be barred from firearm ownership - result of Bruen ruling

© SIGforum 2025