TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 7490.story

The above link is from a Los Angeles Times article by Kim Murphy. She is the paper's Northwest correspondent,
based in Seattle.

The story describes how the LEO community is not happy that medical marijuana users are currently still allowed
to have CHL's and carry their guns. The LEO's feel that the medical marijuana licensing is a sham and that people
who are otherwise committing illegal acts should not have weapons.

The medical marijuana users contend that they should not have to give up their self-defense weapons since they
are legally entitled to use the drug.

The gal in the opening paragraph is a grandmother of 4 who carries a Walther P22 pistol in a shoulder holster as
she travels around her rural area.

SIA

Med weed is a sham...

So was prohibition.

mgood wrote:So was prohibition.

And during prohibition people could get prescriptions for "medicinal alcohol" for an amazing array of ailments, none of which would be treated by the use of alcohol today.

gigag04 wrote:Med weed is a sham...

There are those wo would say the DEA is a sham just as is the BATF...

I happen to sit by an 85 year old USCG veteran of the WW II Alaskan campaign the other day in the Kalispell Wal-Mart. Somehow, the conversation turned to current (?) events and practices, etc. He said the marijuana wafers made his hip and back pain go away.

I wish my back and hip pain would go away.

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.

gigag04 wrote:Med weed is a sham...

mgood wrote:So was prohibition.

Keith B wrote: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.

Oldgringo wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Med weed is a sham...

There are those wo would say the DEA is a sham just as is the BATF...

Not sure how that's relevant, and the comment has the feel of a cheap shot. Even a cursory glance at the "med weed" field will show that it is easily gamed by potheads to buy dope. Fix the system so those that have a real need can get treatment they need, legitimize the distribution to mainstream medical pharmacies, and fire all the drug dealing doctors that write out scripts for bogus usage to potheads, and I might be swayed.

gigag04 wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Med weed is a sham...

There are those wo would say the DEA is a sham just as is the BATF...

Not sure how that's relevant, and the comment has the feel of a cheap shot. Even a cursory glance at the "med weed" field will show that it is easily gamed by potheads to buy dope. Fix the system so those that have a real need can get treatment they need, legitimize the distribution to mainstream medical pharmacies, and fire all the drug dealing doctors that write out scripts for bogus usage to potheads, and I might be swayed.

The medical marijuana prescriptions are no more abused than any other scams to get unneeded/unauthorized drugs. I have seen first hand evidence of physicians that dole out scrips for Oxycontin, hydrocodine, etc, etc, like they were candy. Abusers find ways to get their stuff, no matter.

So, if it is a legitimate method of easing the ailment, then I say go for it. But, there needs to be hard set guidelines on it and even more harsh punishments for those that abuse the system IMO.

gigag04 wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Med weed is a sham...

There are those wo would say the DEA is a sham just as is the BATF...

Not sure how that's relevant, and the comment has the feel of a cheap shot. Even a cursory glance at the "med weed" field will show that it is easily gamed by potheads to buy dope. Fix the system so those that have a real need can get treatment they need, legitimize the distribution to mainstream medical pharmacies, and fire all the drug dealing doctors that write out scripts for bogus usage to potheads, and I might be swayed.

Or we can admit that the "War on Drugs" is a failed policy, just like prohibition. "Users will find a way"... Once we admit that, we can look for something new to try that truly helps abusers and keeps the $$ from the hands of our enemies and cartels.

Is it really necessary that I fill out a form to buy OTC allergy meds because Sudafed can be used to make Meth? Is this really where we want to go with drug policy? Foolishness. If I can make meth in my bathroom, just like I can make beer in my laundry room, current drug policy will never be able to get ahead of that fact.

Time to admit the plan we have CANNOT work no matter how hard we tweak (pun intended) it and try a new direction.

The whole drugs vs. alcohol thing is a scam. Alcohol kills many people and can be just as addicting as some drugs. The same can be said for cigarettes even except they don't affect your mental state. That being said we allow it because the companies that produce them spend ton's of money on advertising, lobbying and taxes. I'm all for legalizing, marijuana and taxing the hell out of it. It's no worse than alcohol and possibly better. No one ever died that I know of from eating to many brownies.

Also, it does have a legitimate use in cancer patients and those that for whatever reason have no appetite and are wasting. It's also been studied in glaucoma patients and found to be helpful.

Keith B wrote: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.

austinrealtor wrote:

Keith B wrote: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.

viewtopic.php?f=94&t=43827" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I thought this argument sounded familiar.

Ameer wrote:viewtopic.php?f=94&t=43827

I thought this argument sounded familiar.

Wow man, I didn't remember that topic. Must be my prescription causing me to forget dude.