Oregon LEO's at odds w/medical pot users having CHL's.

[The Annoyed Man]

.....The number of medical marijuana users who legitimately need this drug for legitimate medical reasons is a small percentage of the total number who have prescriptions for it.....

...but I do know of one case in which it really is the best option for the patient....

So while I agree that most (95% if I'm being generous) medical pot users are phonies, there are some people out there who are helped by it.

That's essentially what I said. I think that if it is to be legally called "medical" marijuana, then it ought to be only dispensed by real pharmacies, and filled only by real pharmacists......pharmacists who will call the doctor on it if they think that the "patient" is abusing the prescription process—just like they would do if I were abusing the process of obtaining opiates for pain. If it is a real pharmaceutical, then it ought to be a controlled substance, the same way my blood pressure and thyroid medications are controlled substances. If it isn't a real pharmaceutical, then stop calling it "medical" marijuana, and start being honest for a change and calling it "this is me gettin high 'cause I wanna" marijuana, and start speaking some truth about it for once.

[RottenApple]

That's essentially what I said.

My apologies. My response was aimed more at your "I think that medical marijuana is crap" statement. I only meant that the programs themselves are not the issue, it's the abuses of the programs that are the problem.

[Bulldog1911]

I think it should fall into the intoxicated status of their state laws as it relates to firearms if they actually have a prescription for it. It should be just like carrying while taking any other prescription drug, and if you have loss of use of your faculties, then you should be charged with UCW.

Doesn't matter if you have the marijuana "legally" ... intoxicated is intoxicated is intoxicated ... doesn't matter if a "doctor" gave it to you, if it impairs your mental/physical/emotional abilities to a degree as defined by law as to render you too dangerous to possess a firearm at that time, then you're committing a crime if you do so. Period. Whether or not you are legally under the influence of the substance is immaterial.

+1

[Keith B]

....... if it is to be legally called "medical" marijuana, then it ought to be only dispensed by real pharmacies, and filled only by real pharmacists......

Yeah, but these people don't want to buy their medicine from a pharmacist unless he is wearing sandals, a Hawaiian shirt, calls them 'Dude' when they are getting the prescription filled, and also sells bongs and pipes in his pharmacy.

Then again, that may be a normal pharmacy/pharmacist in California.

[Apophis]

Reading a lot of these posts kind of seem ironic. Many who are for prohibition or the "war" on drugs sound a lot like those anti-gun liberals.

"Bloody in the streets"
"only crazies do that"
"society will fall into pieces if this is made legal"

Not to make an anecdotal statement or comparing micro to macro, however some "potsmokers" I've know who may or may not live in the states, make more money than 95%+ of the posters on this board.

If you feel the gov't needs to protect us from a plant, maybe you should consider on the gov't protecting us from those evil scary guns with the long magazines than can take a tank out from 3 miles away, and has baby-seeking death bullets.

[pcgizzmo]

I'm sure during prohibition people said the same things some here are saying. Marijuana is no more harmful and probably less harmful than alcohol.

[The Annoyed Man]

Reading a lot of these posts kind of seem ironic. Many who are for prohibition or the "war" on drugs sound a lot like those anti-gun liberals.

"Bloody in the streets"
"only crazies do that"
"society will fall into pieces if this is made legal"
Reread my posts. I made no such statements. Not even close.

Not to make an anecdotal statement or comparing micro to macro, however some "potsmokers" I've know who may or may not live in the states, make more money than 95%+ of the posters on this board.
What does that have to do with anything? Income has little or nothing to do with anything I've said. Not a single thing. And for the record, I've been around people with that kind of income too. Income ≠ character. I judge people by the content of their character, not the contents of their bank accounts. Besides that, you have no idea on earth what "95%+" of this board earns. Not a clue. Therefore, that particular statement is meaningless.

If you feel the gov't needs to protect us from a plant, maybe you should consider on the gov't protecting us from those evil scary guns with the long magazines than can take a tank out from 3 miles away, and has baby-seeking death bullets.
A disrespectful nonsensical red herring. Here is a detailed definition of "red herring": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

Red herring is an idiomatic expression referring to the rhetorical or literary tactic of diverting attention away from an item of significance.

See my responses in red above...

I don't really care one way or the other if you want to smoke dope. I really don't. It's not for me, but you're not me, so if you want to smoke it, and you think you can do it without A) losing your job, and B) getting busted, go head on brother. But if I may suggest something to you, perhaps you should not smoke any of it before trying to post something based on logic or not having actually read and understood the posts to which you are responding.

[The Mad Moderate]

Yes there are some (very few) who do get therapeutic relief from marijuana, There are many more who smoke without a "prescription" My question is why does it matter and why is it illegal in the first place. I don't need the government to tell me what to eat, drink, or smoke. They may suggest all they want, present the facts not scare tactics such as "if you buy weed you are supporting terrorists". What happened to "the land of the free"? If I want to eat a deep fried bacon wrapped cheeseburger with a gallon of fries a picture of beer and a joint it should be my prerogative so long as it does not affect anyone else. Having said that carrying a gun while high or drunk for that matter poses risks to other people that I think supersede my right to carry. If a person wants to carry and drink or smoke weed I think they should feel free so long as it does not mix with guns.

[i8godzilla]

I'm sure during prohibition people said the same things some here are saying. Marijuana is no more harmful and probably less harmful than alcohol.

Marijuana was legal in many places during prohibition. Prohibition ended in 1933 and the Marijuana Tax Act was passed in 1937 although there was some regulation prior in the Uniform Narcotic Act (1934). The first marijuana laws were in enacted by the city of El Paso in ~1903. Most Marijuana laws were passed in the southern states simply because the majority of the users were minorities. After the the 1910 Mexican Revolution waves of Mexicans came to the U.S. and introduced us to recreational use.

Just recently the Global Commission on Drug Policy released a report indicating that there is no way to win the "War on Drugs".

Why is it we needed a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw alcohol which was legal when the country was founded and we use a perverted interpretation of the Commerce Clause to outlaw marijuana which was also legal when the country was born?

[RottenApple]

Why is it we needed a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw alcohol which was legal when the country was founded and we use a perverted interpretation of the Commerce Clause to outlaw marijuana which was also legal when the country was born?

Because the issue is not really about what is/is not safe or what is/not good for you. It's about control.

[i8godzilla]

Why is it we needed a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw alcohol which was legal when the country was founded and we use a perverted interpretation of the Commerce Clause to outlaw marijuana which was also legal when the country was born?

Because the issue is not really about what is/is not safe or what is/not good for you. It's about control.

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner!

[blackmesa]

I'm sure during prohibition people said the same things some here are saying. Marijuana is no more harmful and probably less harmful than alcohol.

Being shot with a 30-30 is no more harmful and probably less harmful than being shot with a 30-06.

If marijuana does affect mental state, then the Oregon LEOs have a valid point about carrying a gun under the influence.
On the other hand, if marijuana doesn't affect mental state, pot smokers are wasting their money.

[Oldgringo]

It is the "forbidden fruit" syndrome.

Since the dawn of time it has always been somebody's self-appoined and self-serving job to tell you what is good and/or what is not good for you.

[sjfcontrol]

I'm sure during prohibition people said the same things some here are saying. Marijuana is no more harmful and probably less harmful than alcohol.

Being shot with a 30-30 is no more harmful and probably less harmful than being shot with a 30-06.

If marijuana does affect mental state, then the Oregon LEOs have a valid point about carrying a gun under the influence.
On the other hand, if marijuana doesn't affect mental state, pot smokers are wasting their money.

That argument only makes sense, if shooting someone with a 30-06 is legal, and shooting someone with a 30-30 is not.
With a high enough dose, both marijuana and alcohol affect the user's mental state. Yet they are treated differently -- both legally, and with respect to its use's effect on CHL licensing.

[Apophis]

Reading a lot of these posts kind of seem ironic. Many who are for prohibition or the "war" on drugs sound a lot like those anti-gun liberals.

"Bloody in the streets"
"only crazies do that"
"society will fall into pieces if this is made legal"
Reread my posts. I made no such statements. Not even close.

Not to make an anecdotal statement or comparing micro to macro, however some "potsmokers" I've know who may or may not live in the states, make more money than 95%+ of the posters on this board.
What does that have to do with anything? Income has little or nothing to do with anything I've said. Not a single thing. And for the record, I've been around people with that kind of income too. Income ≠ character. I judge people by the content of their character, not the contents of their bank accounts. Besides that, you have no idea on earth what "95%+" of this board earns. Not a clue. Therefore, that particular statement is meaningless.

If you feel the gov't needs to protect us from a plant, maybe you should consider on the gov't protecting us from those evil scary guns with the long magazines than can take a tank out from 3 miles away, and has baby-seeking death bullets.
A disrespectful nonsensical red herring. Here is a detailed definition of "red herring": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

Red herring is an idiomatic expression referring to the rhetorical or literary tactic of diverting attention away from an item of significance.

See my responses in red above...

I don't really care one way or the other if you want to smoke dope. I really don't. It's not for me, but you're not me, so if you want to smoke it, and you think you can do it without A) losing your job, and B) getting busted, go head on brother. But if I may suggest something to you, perhaps you should not smoke any of it before trying to post something based on logic or not having actually read and understood the posts to which you are responding.

If those were your replies, then my post wasn't directed toward you.

I put income down, because if you do make a considerable amount, you are in some way contributing to society. Most definitely not leeching.

I personally don't do ANY drugs, that includes alcohol, or caffeine. However, I don't feel it's right to have the gov't go into American's lives and tell them what they can and can't do. I'm for small gov't CONSISTANTLY, not when it's just convenient for me....

Coming to my conclusion again TAM, that post probably wasn't directed toward you.



PS - another good line for the people who are for drug prohibition is

"it's for the children"

I've heard that quite a few times, for both those evil drugs, and those evil hi-cap 33 round glock magazines.