I don’t approve of carrying a firearm before, during or immediately after smoking pot. But just as there’s a bit merry on booze there’s a bit buzzed on weed. I don’t think someone who’s smoked a joint is necessarily an inherent danger to public safety. Shouldn’t the legality of smoking and carrying depend on what the intoxicated gun owner does — or doesn’t do — with a gun while high?
Innocent until proven guilty? In some (but not all) states I can sit in my car when I’m drunk or stoned. It’s only when I drive that I fall afoul of the law. Shouldn’t the same rule apply to carrying a gun or, for that matter, a knife? Or should a gun owner lose their gun rights forever if they’re caught carrying after toking-up?
Actually, if you’re in the car with keys, they can bust you for a DUI. Weird, but technically legal.
OTOH, I’d say that the 2nd amendment is rather clear on the issue. I don’t seem to remember exceptions anywhere in the text.
Around here your keys need to be in the ignition for it to be considered DUI. That way drinks can sleep it off in their car.
It depends where you are. Some places the car has to be tunning, others the key simply in the ignition and in yet others simple possession of the keys while in the car and intoxicated is illegal. Thus being TTAG call the last item there “constructive intent”.
A friend of mine actually got a DUI for sleeping in the back seat of his car with the keys in his pocket when he was too drunk to drive home from a bar. You’d think that would be grounds for kudos rather than arrest but hey, I don’t make the laws I just try to avoid getting caught breaking any.
In Arkansas they call that one “Drunk on Highway” and it’s exactly the same as a DUI.
Text amended. Thanks!
Really? You must’ve missed that whole fifth Amendment thing, where they mentioned depriving people of rights so long as they’re afforded due process. Moose out front shoulda told ya.
Do you know what “due process” is? HINT: It doesn’t mean you can just ban things.
Can’t spell anymore so it’s “do process” as in “we do process every arrest and let the lawyers sort it out”
Agreed about drunk in a parked car with the keys. My nephew got convicted of DUI that way. (He realized he shouldn’t be driving and had parked to sober up.)
As far as carrying a weapon while high on anything, it’s a bad idea even if technically legal. In my state, the BAC limit is zero for carrying on your CCW permit. In the next state over, the limit is 0.08, the same as for driving. In my state, a knife under 3.5″ doesn’t qualify as a weapon. Therefore, it’s legal to carry one even where state law prohibits weapons. If you need to defend yourself with a weapon, whether gun, knife or proverbial blunt object, you can expect the other guy’s lawyer to exaggerate any conceivable impairment of judgement on your part.
Yea it’s dumb. They just want to rack up more state money. A drunk guy sleeping on his porch near his car is OK – but a drunk guy sleeping in his car in a parking lot on private property is not.
Yeah, I got busted for sleeping in my car while under the influence too. There was no evidence that I had driven anywhere or was going to (and in fact had not and was not going to). I had somehow forgotten this was illegal so when the cop asked if I had been drinking I said yes and was pretty surprised when he asked me to step out of the car. I was cognizant of the carrying while under the influence law so I didn’t have a firearm with me. I hate these malum prohibitum laws with the intensity of a thousand white hot suns. This was the second time I had run afoul of one.
After many a drunken bar discussion, we have come to the conclusion that in Michigan, at least, the only legal way to leave a bar of you’re intoxicated is to have someone else drive you.
Driving is good for DUI.
Walking can get you drink in public.
There’s even an operating charge for riding a bike.
None of those scenarios, however, diminish my right to self defense.
The problem is the Federal government continues to classify Pot as a Schedule 1 drug…which greatly reduces the amount of testing that can be done.
What is needed is an impairment test / standard (just like a BAC of .08) to test for impairment. So you can test if the guy driving (or carrying a gun) is intoxicated / impaired….or just a pot user from last weekend.
I do not know, and I don’t anyone can state for certainty whether Weed is better or worse for your body that Alcohol or Cigarettes…which is why we need more testing. So that rational people can make an informed decision.
I do not smoke pot, but in the past I did.
I drink alcohol, and I understand the health risks…I also drive my car fast, and I understand those risks.
When the government chooses to keep the public in the dark or disallow research, they are doing a dis-service to those they are sworn to serve.
The problem you point out is a sticky one. Drug tests don’t test for the actual substance but for metabolites of it. In the case of pot, those metabolites are fat soluable and therefore remain in your system for an average of three weeks. In theory you could test for actual THC in the blood but that would require a blood draw and a new testing procedure that would be rather pricey and, at this point based on instrumentation chemistry. No government is going to pay for gas chromatography on ever suspect high driver.
Then there’s the fact that there is a portion of police and right wingers who actually believe and will argue that smoking a joint gets you high for weeks. If you ask them why it is that someone smokes weed on Friday and Saturday since under their theory the person should still be high and not need a joint on Saturday they’ll go into an explanation of addiction that makes it quite clear that they have zero idea what they’re talking about.
Ignorance combined with costs mean that the test you desire will probably never be developed. DUI is a racket at this point and the state isn’t going to layout money so that they can stop making money.
So, for pot what they need then is a “Munchy-o-meter.”
Or a reasonable field sobriety test like the cop could show the driver a Cheech and Chong clip on his laptop and if the driver laughs until he pees himself, he’s either high or brain damaged.
sean in MT, i think they should just make your answer the SOP.
“Right-wingers”? Drug laws are products of the left. Maybe you should pass the joint, buddy.
The law here (to my knowledge) is 15ng. That’s nanograms. As far as dui charges go. So they’ve tried to establish a standard. Pot doesn’t lend itself well to it because you can’t judge the intake as well.
To answer the QOTD, yes. They’ve pulled and refused permits to carry for people with Red cards here in my county.
It’s not just the intake. The testing process is, at this point in time, flawed and an actual determination is therefore impossible. This has been argued about in the state legislature and the truth is that at this point there is no valid test.
This was heavily researched in the 1970’s when it was feared that airline pilots might fly while high. It’s a very sticky problem because there’s no real way to determine exactly when the person used the drug in relation to what you find in their blood. Theoretically a test could be developed using gas chromatography/mass spectrometer (GCMS) evaluation of a sample after the the substances normally found blood had been pretty well stripped away. However low concentrations of actual THC do dissolve into fat meaning that such a removal changes the tests results and since there’s no way to time stamp things a pilot who went to Jamaica and smoke dope rather heavily for a few days can and will have the same concentrations of testable materials in their blood as the guy who smoked a single joint earlier today.
It’s theoretically possible to develop such a test but it would be hellishly expensive to develop and even more costly to deploy. The conclusion back then was that it wasn’t worth it. If you suspect the pilot of being high you put them in a simulator and see if they can fly. This test was also deemed to be too expensive to deploy properly.
So, as it is they can set whatever limits they like for DUI with pot but in the actual science they don’t have any real, hard concrete evidence that you’re high at the time you’re operating the vehicle because there is no actual scientific way to determine that.
Sorry, I nerd out about this because my dad talks about this sort of thing all the time. That’s what happens when your parents are chemists and one of them wrote a rather significant text book on chemical instrumentation.
I would point out that according to the governmen (federal) there is no legal use for pot and anyone who consumes it is an illicit user who is not only banned from carrying but from ownership of firearms. If they acquire one OTC they’ve also lied on the 4473 which is yet another crime. In fact, here in Colorado before they made pot legal anyone with a medical Marijuana card was in a CBI database as a prohibited person.
Actually, here in colorado it’s still the law that anyone with a medical Mary Jane card, for two consecutive years or more is still a prohibited person, but wait, i can still pop a couple vicoden or Percocet pills and not be a prohibited person, hence why at least half of Colorado’s population indeed smoke weed regularly, but will lie on that background check, most ffls could care less, even if your completely stoned upon purchase, kinda like our “high capacity mag ban” I can go order a 100 round Tommy gun mag as a “repair kit” right now, and have had several ffl gun shops tell me how, when we see our government turn to tyranny who among the citizens is really going to care? I’m sure many of the Californian people still have their “illegal” ar-15 weapons stashed for such an occasion, will you be the one to tell them, hey that’s illegal, when they are potentially saving your life? They got stoned in Vietnam, probably Iraq too while defending our freedom, while, guess what, carrying a fully automatic weapon. Stupid question.
I never had a card because I don’t smoke weed but how long does that “prohibited person” status last after you get rid of the card? I know my buddy had one and he got rid of it. He had to wait something like 9 months before he could buy a gun.
I’m aware of the ways around the mag ban. I laugh every time I walk into my LGS and see mags disassembled and bagged as a “repair kit”.
In CO as well — I was under the impression that once CBI has you flagged, you’re flagged. I don’t touch pot because I have to maintain a clearance for work, but there’s at least one person i know who had a MM card years ago and is still flagged as an “addict”.
The mag law here is indeed a joke, but I also don’t want to give them any bright ideas.
Disassembled? Hell I’ve seen them sold as regular mags!
Michi:
I really don’t know I never had a card and haven’t smoked dope in a long, long time. I just know my buddy had a card because of “back pain” *snicker* and didn’t own any guns. Then he met me and got into guns. He got rid of his card and had to wait awhile before he was legally able to purchase.
I want to say it was around 9 months after he got rid of if that he walked into a Gander Mountain and bought a shotgun. Since then, in the past few years, he’s accumulated maybe a dozen guns from revolvers to an AR and an AK.
He did get rid of his card before pot became legal in general though so maybe that affects how the CBI looks at it? I have no idea.
Not true.
There’s one guy who, not only doesn’t violate federal law by smoking pot, the government provides it for him. He has an incredibly rare bone disease, and THC is the best treatment for it. (THC is also useful for treating eye diseases–just ask George HW Bush, nausea, and other medical conditions). He was on Penn & Teller: BS, for their show on the drug war/prohibition.
http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2011/01/federal_government_gives_florida_man_free_marijuan.php
OK, there’s one guy who gets weed from the government for his rare bone disease.
We’re not talking about the one guy who gets special treatment that the rest of us don’t get.
We’re talking about the general public and the portion of them that choose to smoke marijuana recreationally. While I think most people agree that the scheduling of MJ as Schedule 1 is retarded that doesn’t mean the current law doesn’t apply in most circumstances to people who use marijuana medicinally. If you’ve got glaucoma and your doc says “Try weed” that’s still illicit use unless apparently you manage to procure a special dispensation from the feds. Without a special license/letter from the DEA, possession of marijuana without a tax stamp is illegal. Using it, even with the tax stamp, is similarly illegal.
One of the ironic things about the War on Drugs and the DEA is that despite that gentleman getting free cannabis from the Federal Government in order to treat his diagnosed medical condition, just last week the DEA (part of that very same Federal Government that grows quite a bit of weed and gives it to free to a couple patients) issued a ruling stating that they would not reclassify cannabis as a Class 2 controlled substance that merits further scientific research, and instead chose to keep it in the Class 1 controlled substance schedule with heroin, LSD, mescaline, MDMA, and magic mushrooms because the DEA determined that cannabis has “no medicinal value” and that it is a dangerous substance.
In answer to the original question, I support the right of a gay pot farmer to protect his cannabis crops and his husband with a fully automatic AK-47.
If one starts talking about pot like this than where does it end? Antidepressants? Pain pills for your back? Viagra? To me this question is utter nonsense. One can have some booze and still be cool with a gun and the very same is true of pot. And yes I speak from experience first hand. The attitude in this country on pot has more to do with cops wanting seized assets than it has to do with public safety or “the children”.
Government, is ALWAYS behind society because the politicians are too busy doing fund raising, making nice with special interest groups and telling lies that legislation is always behind the times.
EXCEPT — when there is a hot button issue or to push a narrative or agenda, and then its tout de suite.
You shouldn’t be carrying if you are intoxicated from any substance. The problem with marijuana is that we don’t know when a person becomes unimpaired after use. Both Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown had THC levels that were consistent with impaired judgement and of course Aaron Hernandez was toking up 90 minutes before he murdered someone. So even if your answer no to the question of the day you are still left with a problem about when it is safe to carry after using weed.
I don’t think people are effected by pot in the same ways. I used to know a fellow who built airplane engines while high. Yeah, I know that sounds terrible, but he worked like a machine when he smoked and as far as I could tell never made a mistake on those engines. They all ran very very well. I would fly behind one without reservation. I am certain that this tale is accurate because I lived with him in the hanger/workshop for 5 months and watched him every day. Dead sober, my work was no where near as good as his. Maybe he was one in a million, I don’t know, but I am pretty sure he wasn’t endangering anyone or committing a crime in the ethical sense.
Most drinks don’t have an accident when driving drunk. So what is your point?
My point that what makes one person act unsafely doesn’t necessarily make another person act unsafely. One drug level rule doesn’t fit all. It is the behavior not the drug level that should be considered for legal purposes. I think that laws like these BAC ones are designed to make it easier to prosecute someone rather than to accurately judge whether someone has committed a crime in the ethical sense.
“My point that what makes one person act unsafely doesnât necessarily make another person act unsafely. One drug level rule doesnât fit all.”
^^^THIS^^^.
Booze is no different. My friend/roommate and I completely rebuilt a Ford 5.0 engine in our driveway while drinking beer most of the time. Engine ran great when we were done. I’ve also met people who appear dead sober when they’re well past 0.08 and other people who are trashed after a single drink. People don’t react the same way to the same substance.
Back in the day when I smoked weed it drastically increased my ability to play FPS computer games. Sober I was average. High I was pretty much unstoppable. I dunno what would happen if I tried to work on an engine high… I feel like I’d have trouble remembering where I put my socket wrench but who knows. I won’t find out because I don’t get high any more.
Playing a FPS video game while blazed better than not is not surprising to me. Eons past when I smoked, being high made me incredibly focused on the task directly in front of me.
The problem is, that focus is so sharp you’re not keeping the other stuff around you in perspective. I can see that a problem in flying, simply because there is a *lot* of other stuff to do than the ‘stick-and-rudder’ stuff that holds most of your attention…
Geoff
The guy flying high will be easy to catch, just like the guy driving stoned at 25 under the speedlimit.
*radio*”Alpha-21 come to 220 knots on course 331, over”…”Alpha-21, why are you flying at 160 knots? Over.”
“Tower, this is Alpha 21 the clouds just move so faaaassst at 220 knots brah and it’s killing my buzz… over”
We have a friend of the family and he is high ALL the time. If he is awake, he is high. When he visits and I’m having coffee first thing, he’s smoking dope. This guy never shows any sign of being impaired, works a fairly technical job, has a normal family life, and has never had an issue with the law. It wouldn’t bother me if he carried a gun. That said, since there’s many people I wouldn’t trust with a gun in any case, I sure wouldn’t want to be around most people smoking pot. Our friend has also convinced me that pot is addictive, at least for some people.
Not an argument, but where does one draw the line? Sleep deprivation can have as much, and at times, even a more negative impact on judgement, motor skills and other psychological and physiological affects on a person. So, should we mandate minimum sleep to carry? Maximum numbers of hours of being awake? Naps as a mandatory requirement to CCW?
Just some thoughts.
Mandatory rest periods are required in commercial aviation…
Lack of sleep, in my experience, has been far far more dangerous than any substance I’ve been subject to, prescription or recreational.
I wasn’t a big drinker when I was younger but I sure did drive a lot while sleep deprived, thinking I could handle it. A few near misses cured me of that notion.
“You shouldnât be carrying if you are intoxicated from any substance.”
So cigarette smokers cant carry. Coffee drinkers can’t carry. People who take benadryl for ant bites or allergies cant carry. Etc. Et al. Ergo. Point being, there are TONS of very-commonly consumed psychoactive drugs. In all the examples I listed, a considerable enough dose would likely make someone unable to safely operate a firearm.
Examples: I once had a cigarette (first in weeks) while atop Jungfrau in Switzerland. I almost blacked out from the head rush and was shakey for hours. Were you ever in grad school? Then I’m sure at some point you had been up for almost 24 straight, running off about a dozen cups of coffee. I’d certianly never trust myself to carry a gun in that situation. Know what the difference is between a benadryl you take for allergies and an OTC sleeping pill? The dosage. So since it is a fact that with all those substances, consuming too much can make you unable to safely carry a gun, is the logical conclusion that NOONE who uses ANY of those substances can NEVER carry? No thats insane. If used moderately with an awareness of the effects, all those substances can be used safely in the presence of firearms. The same goes for alcohol, pot, opiates, benzodiazapenes, and all the rest.
THC stays in your system for *weeks* and does not necessarily mean anything other than you smoked a joint sometime in the last month.
Well I used to smoke a he!! of a lot of a lot of pot(more than 30 years ago-and most of it wasn’t hyper potent stuff folks get high with now). It made me stupid, lazy.unambitious and paranoid. And added a bit of gynocomastia. I’m not a fan of the weed for gun owners. You’ll have to fib on your federal form too. But as a general right? Sure-but it’s still a federal crime. Establishing a baseline for “pot-carry” is damn near un-possible. I’m very much in favor of medical marijuana though. Better than a beer…
Could that Gynecomastia be a by-product of your weightlifting regime? Like, any steroid use back then?
NahGeoff- pot converts very easily into estrogen in the male body. It’s one reason chronic pot smokers are generally PU$$YS. I did my best lifts totally clean of exogenous aids. After 40…and a genetic predisposition toward gyno has something to do with it. My 23 year old son has some boobs with zero drug intake.
The whole question is moot. According to the ATF, if you’re a pot user, you’ve already lost your gun rights. Even if it’s medicinal, even if it’s legal in your state. It’s still a federal crime, and the ATF has already ruled that marijuana users are prohibited from owning firearms.
According to the ATF: “any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and is prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition.”
https://www.atf.gov/file/60211/download
Yes. This ^^^
Question is irrelevant and perhaps even dangerously misleading
Do you know the difference between right/wrong and legal/illegal?
Yes, one gets your ass locked up behind bars where you lose your liberty, your gun rights, your job, your reputation, and your ability to ever get hired again.
Whereas the other is generally reduced to being something people argue about on the internet. Moral outrage and all, but doesn’t change a thing about what actually happens in actual real life.
Get the law changed if you don’t like it, but you should at least know what the law is because it can have severe consequences on your life, whether you consider it “right” or “wrong”.
only drink or smoke at night, at home. I dont carry or handle a firearm for the rest of the evening. But that’s just my personal standard
The dude in the video might he think he’s real cool now, but my guess is he may think otherwise in 20 years or so.
The question itself is irrelevant, as you’d have to have lied on form 4473 in the first place which is a Huge no no, let alone on your application for a concealed carry permit.
But as to the thought behind the question – It’s not really any different than alcohol in that regard.
However, i’m guessing a prosecutor/lawyer attached to that bullet isnt gonna be all groovy and see it that way when your pee comes back as positive for marijuana after a DGU.
So in conclusion, i would HIGHLY recommend avoiding mixing the two. That might piss some people off but oh well. Better to be pissed off than pissed on
I’m pretty sure 20 years from now, “professional joint roller” and “I once sold a guy a pot AK-47 and seven thousand dollars” are both going to be awesome fucking stories for this guy’s buddies.
Matter of fact, that’s some serious cred no matter where you drop it. Office. Bar. PTA meeting.
Yes. 100%.
The terms of my license say I can’t drink while carrying, but say nothing about being under the influence of alcohol while carrying. So if I’ve had a beer or two and decide to walk the dog, I don’t hesitate to carry. Probably better not to create a situation where I might have to DGU with more than a 0.0% BAC, but there you go- not illegal and not against the terms of my license. More important IMO is whether your DGU is affected by bad judgment caused by alcohol or drugs. But we can work that out afterwards, like we always do.
Sure, pot smokers should be allowed to carry. Just don’t carry while smoking. Because pot smoke and gun smoke don’t mix.
I have zero problems with gun owners smoking pot. Or pot heads owning guns. I do have a problem with anyone under the influence of a mind altering drug carrying a gun or shooting a gun. I’m not sure how long the high lasts, but during that time no gun related activities.
Disagree.
I’ve said this here before but I’ll say it again. From a purely logical perspective if you drink or get high, you SHOULD practice with your firearm while you are under the influence. Now, I’m not talking about getting stoned out of your mind here or getting shitfaced while shooting. However, even just a drink or two or a puff off a joint will change your perception and your manipulation of a gun. That doesn’t mean handling it is necessarily unsafe. It’s just different. You want to know that because when the guy comes through the door while you’re sitting having dinner with your wife you don’t get repeated chances to fumble with your safety or your draw.
The fact is that if you like to have a drink or a smoke after work what are the chances that your friendly local home invaders are going to make sure you’re deadnuts sober before breaking into your house? Zero. Home invasions, by definition occur when you are home. When you’re at work you’re not home. If you’re not at work and it’s night time chances are you’ve had your relaxation chemical of choice already and I’m not aware of a lot of criminals who get up extra early so they can catch you eating oatmeal in your boxers just to make sure you’re sober when they show up.
The choices here are pretty simple: be a teetotaler or practice enough self restraint that you don’t get so fucked up you can’t handle a gun and PRACTICE with said gun while mildly intoxicated so that you know how it feels to operate that firearm after a drink or a puff. That way if SHTF in your house and you’ve had a finger or two of that nice bottle of whiskey you can safely and effectively operate your tools and handle your business.
No one, but no one has ever locked up their gun while having a couple drinks/puffs that then said “Thank God I was extra safe about my firearm and my booze/pot!” as a home invader slit their throat or raped their wife and daughter.
So go out in the boonies and shoot. Take a puff or two if that’s your thing or have some beers/booze-drinks while you’re doing it. Just don’t get wasted and have a “Hold my booze/pipe/whatever and watch this!” moment. I’ve seen plenty of people get high and shoot just fine and I’ve personally had a six pack while shooting with no ill effects on anyone present. Makes your camping trip more enjoyable.
I’d never looked at it that way before, but that’s actually brilliant. Changing your mental state just a tad so that you can figure out how to fight even if you’re not stone sober… That’s really smart.
I have my moments but the idea is not entirely mine.
I actually got the idea by expanding on something Joe Rogan said about getting high before BJJ. He’s a big stoner but he’s also a multiple black belt. Two in different forms of BJJ (gi and no gi), one in taekwondo (he was going to go to the Olympics for taekwondo) and another mid level belt in some form of kick boxing. I’m big on BJJ but I don’t get high so it doesn’t matter for me. That said, I do like the occasional beer.
No.
IMHO I label [and IMHO I believe very strongly that societal history has also so-determined] (illicit) drug use as a sign of your interest in Societal Agreement. If you’re not enough interested in today, you’re not interested in your tomorrow. If you’re not interested in you’re tomorrow, you’re not interested in my tomorrow, or my kid’s tomorrow. . .
In the short term it might seem ok, but long term I believe that it has already been evidenced so.
When it comes to the “Societal Agreement,” I want to renegotiate.
What? I can’t renegotiate? Then it’s not an agreement, its a diktat.
You don’t want to renegotiate, you want to violate one of the terms.
A [single] person’s existence is not long enough to hash out, with another individual or worse many other individuals (individually) without taking up all of the time needed to accomplish anything else,
You’re hoping to play “anything goes” but you would not tolerate limiting the game to my version. Thus the 100% push-back.
The constitution is my societal agreement. I have no problem with anyone using any substance they want as long as it doesn’t affect my rights as in they steal from me to get their fix. It’s crazy to me that people say well something is illegal it must be wrong.
Hello Comrade!! You should change your screen name to Red or Lenin’s right hand or Stalin’s ghost or something more suited to your collectivist personality.
I’d hate to be your kids and living in their tomorrow. I think Ralph summed it up nicely.
You’re attempting to deny that we are kids that are growing up in other people’s tomorrow. I’m just saying that this sh_t has already been hashed-out (no pun intended). You’re blaming me for past Society’s invention of the term ‘illicit’ and the labeling of the saps who succumb to the regular use of the things that fall into that category ‘deleterious’ to Society.
We only get along due to a few small imutable things. I didn’t decide them.
Like the pastor Billy Graham once said “I am just the sign on the fence that says “Trespassers Will Be Shot”. You can get mad and yell at the sign, but that will not keep you from getting shot if you choose to jump the fence.”
Iâm not blaming you for societyâs past interventions in what should be a personal matter. Iâm calling you out for enforcing your morality on others, and hiding behind majoritarian rule. And, for your astonishingly ignorant view that smoking pot makes you somehow less interested in participating in societyâs present and future. By the way, a majority of Americans (saps as you call them?) think marijuana should be legal. So, perhaps the âsocietal agreementâ is rigged?
As long as the majoritarian is agreeable to your ideology (theology?), then everything is alright? What happens if guns are deemed deleterious to society. Will you be the scourge of society because of your illicit gun use? You seem to think the majority has the right to legislate morality. Iâm sure this âcurrentlyâ suits you well on this issue of marijuana. Based on your Billy Graham reference, Iâm pretty sure it didnât work out all that well on the issues of gay marriage and abortion. And, Iâm sure it ruffles your feathers that freedom of religion is under attack, too. I guess personal freedom and liberty only mean so much, as long as they fall within your narrow circumstance, until it doesnâtâĤ then what?
So, when I say Iâd hate to be your kids growing up in their tomorrow, I donât mean to generalize everyoneâs tomorrow. I mean the prejudiced and ignorant view that your kids will inherit from you.
The “Societal Agreement”? What is this balderdash? I never agreed to anything. I was born into a world run by retards who make laws that carry penalties if I break them no matter how stupid or poorly considered that law might be and irregardless of if I knew about the law or not.
If the US “adds” banning of private firearms to the “Societal Agreement”, the way the Left wants to do, will you comply because it’s all about your kid’s tomorrow? I highly doubt it.
There’s nothing about the Left that’s in compliance with Societal Agreement. My efforts to counter and rectify are not up for discussion.
History recites many overthrows of incredibly powerful assholes, and groups of assholes. Historians continue to marvel at both sides (even military tacticians and strategists [great ones] like Clausewitz marveled at how the general population of France and surround {usually the overrun bystanders} finally took matters into their own hands and made the popular protagonists the side-story and past history). It’s happened in this country a little more than 100 years ago, in Russia and Poland (to a largish extent) in the last 70 years, France within the last 220 years.
Societal Agreement [UNDER GOD] is what sustains our interaction by anything other than combative means, it is ARMISTICE, the cessation of immediate and armed hostilities, not PEACE. Societal Agreement is the only thing that will allow any remainder to coalesce back into a workable “society” should this one finally falter. Societal Agreement is built upon TERMS with simple yet rather absolute meaning. It is the difference between waking up, showering and shaving and going to work, picking up a donut, coffee and paper on the way; and waking up under a tree, and, after surviving the night’s elements, having your first consideration be the defense of yourself, the day’s forage and hunt, your desired mate, and resulting offspring. The exact distance between those two situations is called “society” and depends on Societal Agreement. You might not think that’s how we get along, but both versions are played out on this rock that we share daily, and many times it’s not the usual pressure of the lacking of satisfaction of needs food/water/shelter/etc., it’s just some pack of assholes attempting to rule over you in violation of Societal Agreement, and those things are not forgotten.
But, what if youâre the asshole thatâs trying to impose his morality on society? If you subscribe to the Lockean concept of social contract (Iâm not sure if this is what you mean by societal agreement), then my right to self-preservation and self-defense (natural rights) trumps your moral proclivity to create laws that forbid marijuana users from owning firearms. Since more death and suffering has been had in the name of God than from smoking a joint, then perhaps we should inject a new law into the social contract that bars anyone who is engaged in religion from owning a firearm. Oh, wait. Isnât that what we already want to do with the terrorist watch list, since all terrorists are Muslims, and all Muslims are terrorists?
Again, it’s not “my law”, it’s not a notion that’s sprung from-me. You can’t get past that, and you can’t get past the idea that it came from somewhere in our past that brought us to here (our today). Yes, drug use has been rejected by Society [people have already weighed it with the things that DO support/defend/extend Society, and drug users are NOT found to be one of those things. Sorry, you’re not changing their mind, and I’m listening, but you’re not attempting to change my mind either]. I’M MERELY SAYING – Society exists DESPITE those that use drugs, NOT BECAUSE OF IT.
By logical determination, DRUG USERS ARE SELFISH in that they want to be able to use drugs, but cannot otherwise bolster a Society where everyone can use them. We cannot tolerate, for mere minutes, brain surgeons, railroad engineers, etc., using drugs (of the same kind/extent). If everyone escaped today using drugs, our Society would not continue, and you’d likely bitch about the Doritos supply drying up, while people resorted to more mundane levels of survival that might include violence to obtain basic human need [maybe not, but it’s happening right now as we speak under a few bridges in California and NJ, and worse forms of Societal breakdown can be seen in South America, Africa, Europe, etc.].
Per the previous comment too, YES, I am well apprised of the attacks on the CHRISTIAN (f all other) Religion, similar to the attacks on the 2A, and am equally dismayed and call out those involved in that as possibly greater detriment to Society and general POS quality individuals. If it is ever managed that someone can get me to give up my faith, then I will hunt the lot of you until JESUS comes and asks me why.
With regard to the comment on gay marriage, I will reiterate my previous comment that [and here is a great historical context for you] you can call gay marriage whatever you’d like, what you cannot do is re-write the basic formula for EQUALITY which provides the same result regardless of which way the operation is performed across two short horizontal lines ( = ). EQUAL IS EQUAL, anything else, isn’t. No one can “make you” their equal, and saying such does not make it so. AND INEQUALITY IS NOT A PROJECTED STATE. Human history did not preclude any set of people in the bestowing of the title of “marriage” or “married”. It blessed a type of singular union that provided a blessing in return, and elevated to a protected status to keep people from attempting to continually “renegotiate” what the Societally positively reinforcing couple chose to bind to themselves.
(And I’m sorry but. . .) IF ONE IS BEING HONEST, they would have to admit, that homosexual couples did not provide Society with the same thing OR PEOPLE WOULD BE KICKING DOWN THEIR DOOR TO GET IT. And that is simply just not the case, and no label of bigotry is going to stick to that.
The 1st book of Genesis tells us “And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.” Marijuana is a herb that bears seeds. The Lord God gave it to us for our benefit. How dare you claim some “societal agreement” can take precedence over the Lord God Himself said?
You and I will have to agree to disagree on this.
I don’t believe in a “Societal Agreement”. To me that’s nothing more than a renaming of Lefty groupthink but with a different priority. I believe in individual rights and liberties which means you can do anything you want right up until you start harming others.
If you wanna sit on your couch and do drugs that’s not my business and it’s not your neighbor’s business. Since we don’t have the right to dictate to you what you can and cannot do until you harm others we cannot bequeath the ability to dictate such things to others. We cannot give the State powers we do not individually possess. Only when we have those rights and powers are we free to give them over to the state for enforcement.
We have the right to be secure in our person’s and property. Therefore we can invest those powers in others in the form of the police. We don’t have the right to tell you what you can and can’t do in the privacy of your own home and therefore that is not a power we can hand over to the police. I don’t care if it’s smoking dope or screwing your wife in some kinky way I find odd and disturbing. I don’t have to like what you do or approve of it. In fact I can be disgusted by it. That doesn’t mean I have the right to enter into a “Societal Contract” and give the police the power to kick down your door because you and your wife like to get into kinky anal play, smoke weed or both.
Also, if you want to get all religious about it I suggest a careful read of Ecclesiastes. 9:7 might jump out at you.
Thereâs so much to criticize in your response. I doubt I will take the time to address it all. And, you scarcely addressed the main points in my other responses.
1. It is YOUR law. You continue to support it, therefore, by extension it is your law.
2. Drug use hasnât been rejected by society. Not in the least. Only certain drugs that moral commandos like yourself arbitrarily choose to vilify. How do you classify caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, etc.? Again, a MAJORY of Americans support the legalization of marijuana.
3. Does man exist for the betterment of society? Whoâs definition of society, and by what rules do we abide? Your dogmatism makes your answer very apparent.
4. Drug users or drug abusers are selfish. I donât think thereâs a distinction with you.
5. You sound like the temperance movement prior to prohibition. God forbid the upstanding citizen even lightly partake in a drink or smoke. I think youâd be surprised by the number of brain surgeons, railroad engineers that smoke or use some other âillicitâ drug – essentially anyone with an advanced degree working in a critical function – more than you probably realize. Somehow, they all still seem to contribute or advance society, raise respectable families, and live to a ripe old age. Again, I make the distinction between casual user and abuser. But, in your bizarro hypothetical world, legalization of drugs would spell ruin for all of humankind. Gee. Thanks for looking out for all of humankind. Where would we be without oppressive assholes like yourself saving the world one joint at a time.
6. I support the freedom of religion, as indicated in my previous responseâĤ personal liberty, freedom of association are all paramount to my previous responses. But, more killing has be done in the name of god than any other. So, if weâre strictly speaking about the betterment of society, then religion is certainly on the list of top 10 things that have fucked over humankind. Of course, youâll argue that whatâs been done in godâs name isnât God, but manâs perversion of God. But, hey, YOUR version of god is the real God, and therefore, YOUR version of society, one without drugs, is the only society.
7. Your historical context relative to homosexuality and marriage is as equally dreadful as your position on drugs. Homosexuality existed long before your context of a society. But, since your version of the beginning includes Adam and Eve itâs entirely impossible for you to think of marriage as anything but the biblical one. And, once again, by whoâs definition of society is homosexuality a detriment. Does a celibate priest provide more utility than a gay doctor? And, since when does popularity of oneâs lifestyle dictate its legitimacy?
Fortunately, your way of thinking is on its way out. The difference between you and me is that Iâm perfectly fine with the way you live your lifeâĤ as bigoted, ignorant, bitter and cantankerous as you want. You, on the other hand, want to impose and legislate your morality on everyone that doesnât agree with your version of society. Youâll criticize any government action restricting the 2A, but at the same time celebrate the heavy hand of the state when it oppresses the rights of individuals that express contradictory view to your ideology. In this respect, youâre no different than a democrat. Youâre perfectly fine with big government as long as it represents your way of life.
Joe, randomly using all caps makes you look slightly insane or drunk. Maybe you should recall the verse where God tells us “Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright.”
To all the ‘put-upon’, you are
easily offended. It’s not my law any more than yours. If all the law in the world went away, you’d need Societal Agreement to coalesce enough of society to create any subsequent law or you wouldn’t get it done. In areas where items of basic need are scarce, you might still not get it done. There are earthly examples around the globe, but it plays out similarly in controlled environments, even on reality game shows like Survivor, or Big Brother. Ever since mankind has equaled more than 1 member, we’ve been hashing things out, and there is a hierarchy of how thigs continue to work. If GOD allows us to one day branch out into the Universe, we will get along together, and with anything else we find out there under the same Agreement. Shared value of things and shared value of utilitarian human traits and character are centered in a v-block of human experience, and our communication of those things is essential and ironclad. Everything else, everything else, exists [UNDER GOD] under the auspices of those things, and only until society no longer chooses to cover for them. This is not without extensive examples both ancient and contemporary, and throughout every race, color, creed, sex, what-have-you.
And, again, ALL CAPS TELLS YOUR BRAIN “THIS IS IMPORTANT”. It’s not a ploy, I am honest and open about it, and your brain agrees with that statement. So:
NON DRUG-USERS ARE NOT ASKING FOR EQUALITY.
HETEROSEXUALS ARE NOT ASKING FOR EQUALITY.
CHRISTIANS ARE NOT ASKING FOR EQUALITY.
CONSERVATIVES ARE NOT ASKING FOR EQUALITY.
SOCIETAL AGREEMENT DOES NOT ASK FOR EQUALITY.
I don’t do drugs at all and I have zero interest in yours or your kids’ tomorrow.
Right, I get it, you usually just wait around, lying on the ground in anticipation of death.
Thank you for breaking away from your routine to type us something here.
Shouldn’t you move to North Korea or somewhere more suited to your collectivist belief system?
No. I get the dig, though. N. Korea, while also subject to Societal Agreement, also does little to support it.
Again though, it’s not collectivism of any kind. If anything, it is very-nearly the most antithetical notion to that.
You are a prisoner on this rock, but if you were to travel out into the Universe, you would still need air/food/water/shelter/etc. Most importantly, even if you came upon a source heaped with those things, you’d still need enough of your own ‘peace’ and quiet to pick them up and use them. You don’t have to fight over such things now apparently, because you have been afforded the luxury of the time and opportunity to quibble here, but there are a great many places (some maybe within walking distance of your home) where that might not be the case. But it is Societal Agreement that allows you to take advantage of it. Where Societal Agreement breaks down, or has broken down, people spend more time looking over their shoulder and less time enjoying the fruits of their own labor, and much less of anything you might label “Liberty”. So yes, BOTH of us, and the rest of us, like it or not, are heavily into, and invested in Societal Agreement, and again, none of it has to do with leftist, statist liberal_progressive_communist (D) thinking or doctrine, and I rail against that crap, and those who sell it, regularly here, and will continue to do so as long as I am permitted to.
Love how McBigish doesn’t do the math. Flip your statement around. What if I don’t give a flip about your tomorrow or your kids tomorrow? Aren’t we more likely to try to keep each other from seeing tomorrow?
If you’re not interested in my tomorrow or my kids tomorrow, then I am not interested in your “today”.
I am still having a hard time understanding your idea of a social agreement. You stated “If you aren’t interested in my tomorrow or my kids tomorrow, then I am not interested in your âtodayâ. Yet I get the distinct impression based on your answers so far that the lever that you care about someone else’s today has more to do with the amount that they agree with your moral standards than it does with their level of social utility in producing a thriving environment for future generations. If your children had a gay teacher that taught the state mandated evolution curriculum in science class, how much do you care for their today?
I know CLNT, it’s so crazy it’s indecipherable and unfathomable. You see, thousands of years ago, before you were born, I devised my own form of morality and decided to distribute it to those around me and demand that they follow it. Luckily, the internet came along and I f-ing Jedi mind tricked TTAG to introduce this particular string with a by-line that has a negative connotation with respect to drug users and not the other way around as society normally deems non-drug users as detrimental to society and negatively impactful on Societal Agreement. I understand that it’s convenient to believe that ‘this time’ we try “drug use it’ll be fine” and equal to other forms of societal participation cause Anything Goes is ok as long as we do your version and nobody bothers you about it, or reminds you of the failures (lack of successes) of such a position every f-ing time it’s been tried throughout history. But, yeah, let’s go with it.
The idea that pot makes people completely unable to function is utter nonsense. Drugs, no matter the type, affect each person differently. Opioids for example, make some people tired, drunk-like, and sloppy. For me, I get a heightened sense of awareness, reflexes, strength increase, and a high energy level. That’s not normally what they’re intended to do.
Pot makes me extremely tired, but before that, gives me an extreme degree of focus. On the rare chance I get a book and sit down, I can move through pages far faster than I would sober, or on something else. Pot also makes for a better pain killer, or even a recreational drug than alcohol for people with, say, diabetes. They don’t have to worry about blood sugar spikes or crashes. (I know, being a diabetic most of my life) The idea that there is an all for one solution to a complex problem of inebriation in each different person is foolish.
(BTW, the joints that dude rolls for art, is pretty badass if you actually watch the vid. Crazy stuff stoners do when they have down time.)
Cogent, informed answer. Having spent much time as both in my misspent youth, given the choice, I’d rather be around a high guy with a gun than a drunk guy with a gun. Speaking for myself, these days one of those vices makes me think too much, the other too little.
Yeah, definitely. If it was legal to smoke, yes. Just like with drinking it should be your own judgement as to whether you should carry or not. Only you know your limits, and the effect the strain you are having will be on you. Some people can smoke a mountain of weed and function normally, and some hit a joint twice and are completely non-functional as human beings. It’s a very personal question.
Currently, since you can’t legally smoke weed in most of the US under federal law it’s a nope. Once we finally get over the “Reefer madness” mindset most of our country still has, and can research it more in depth, then we can reconsider the question.
Should people who drink alcohol be ‘allowed’ to carry?
You never hear about anyone smoking a bowl and then shooting up a restaurant.
There’s a comedian who has a routine on that. He says,”I judge how dangerous a drug is by whether I would want to be stuck on an elevator with someone who is addicted to it. Booze? Maybe, it depends. Heroin? Yeah, I’m scared. Meth or crack? I’m scared shitless! A pothead? Ah, not all that worried.
Well, you do hear about people under the influence of pot committing violent crimes, but I can’t remember any where the pot consumption seemed causal. There were usually other drugs involved or the person was the sort than would have done it anyway.
Sure, let the potheads carry. When one of them unknowingly smokes a buddy’s joint laced with hallucinogens and then perforates me at 7-Eleven because I look like a giant fvcking tarantula, I’ll enjoy filing that lawsuit if I’m still alive.
In all seriousness, I’m strongly in favor of adopting the Portuguese legal model, decriminalization of all drugs across the board. The “War on (Some) Drugs” has cost untold bajillions of dollars and terrorized many innocent/harmless people. It has to stop. But there also needs to be a cultural shift among drug users. I have learned through many conversations that the majority only care about getting high, and any other activity that feels magnitudes better while high like eating and sex. The 1A and 2A are met with a thundering chorus of “meh,” yet they constantly preach absolute freedom for their own little activity. It pisses me off to no end.
This isn’t hard… Stop making a ton of new laws, roll everything back to just punishing people that can be proven guilty of causing actual harm to someone, regardless of their gender or race, and call it a night. Then people can be free and earn their responsibility back. Those that don’t wish to participate in an adult society can be dealt with only if they cause an actual problem, rather than lining pockets of the rich to allow us to do anything.
Once upon a time they were Peace Officers not Code Enforcement Officers.
It’s called trolling for money.
Drugs should be legal.
Just like the first prohibition the second prohibition only increased drug use, undermined respect for authority, funded crime instead of legitimate businesses and wasted lots of money (Prohibition 2 is an entire 10th of the budget).
Yes libertarians what to put things into their bodies.
But no you don’t have a right to drive under the influence.
A shop keeper can fire you if you are intoxicated on the job.
The Fed form 4473 asks you if you are a medical Marijuana user. It is grounds for denial of sale at the gun store. The pot heads have sued over this issue in Colorado. I believe they lost in court.
Stay in doors and get high all you want. The police will not bother you.
I was in Sacramento when Mothers Against Drunk Drivers was started there in the late 1970s. It brought the words, personal responsibility, to the intoxication crowd.
It’s not just for libertarians anymore.
It doesn’t matter one damn what I think, or what you think Farago ….or what anyone else on this blog thinks, for that matter. Or how we feel about marijuana one way or another. It’s freaking irrelevant. Please refer to form 4473, and the clarification by the ATF on this matter specifically. Until the law changes, it is quite effing clear what the ATF thinks. The fact that most of believe that weed is less harmful than alcohol, and should be traeated in the same manner is completely effing irrlevant happy talk. You want to have theoretical and moral ‘what-if’ conversations about right and wrong – yay, go right ahead, but the question itself is still stupid and irrelevant until the law is changed. End of conversation.
They make decaffeinated coffee.
So we have to follow all laws because they are laws? What if I don’t agree with the law what if the law said you had to kill your child if you had more then one? It’s the law we have to follow it there is this thing called personal responsibility and just doing what you want and living by your own moral code not one arbitrarily set by someone who thinks they are your better. I like the 2nd where it says shall not be infringed I bet everyone of the founders of this nation had a good buzz 90 percent of the time.
Hey what’s that a trick question or something, Farago?
Where I live it is legal to carry concealed in a bar and drink.
The prohibition on sleeping in one’s car while drunk does not apply to cops. You see, cops utilize “professional courtesy” to get out of situations that get us mere mundane citizens charged and incarcerated. A double standard does exist…
As far as cops drinking while armed, it is normal for them. Civilian concealed weapons permit holders are held to a much higher standard…
Idiot Gun Question of the Day
Marinol has been around for a very long time. Prescriptions are available in any state.
The best and safest policy is to never drink or use drugs. By doing this you will always be prepared whenever an emergency may come up.
okay no one is going to point out the obvious, that ” joint” isnt going to burn worth a damn. and responsible people dont go nuts if they partake in weed. if your an idiot and do something irresponsible with a firearm after ingesting weed it wasnt the weed, it was the dumb dumb who screwed up.
I say yes. As long as you’re not carrying whilst blazed then sure but that all requires the stuff to be legal for use.
Shall not be infringed… There are people sober that are too stupid to have a pencil much less a gun and there are people that could be on every substance known to man that still would be semi rational it all depends.
Easy solution. Grow up (by teenage years), get head out of rear and don’t smoke pot. How hard is that? You going to go pull up dandelions, rutabagas, and celery, roll it in a piece of paper and burn it while sucking in the smoke? Hold your head over a campfire so can inhale the aroma of oak/pine/old tire also?. Just get a clue and grow up. Pot is not the only way to prove you’re an idiot.
I’m going to get straight to the point , it’s JUST POT a piece of grass, it’s not an opiate it’s not anywhere near inhibiting as alcohol, so stop treating it as such .
I smoked pot for 41 years , from 1970 -2012 and have been a firearms carrier , open and concealed here in WV for 29 years and have NO problem with a pot smoker carrying a fire arm . I see many more reasons why a drunk should be considered a bigger threat and even then deprivation of their GOD GIVEN right to defend themselves is over the top wrong . The greatest challenge for safe gun ownership is with those who suffer from ADHD , whether they be drunks , pot smokers or drug abusers , not being able to organize one life to contain their car keys , wallet , or cell phone should be a marker for NOT CARRYING A GUN >
Without getting into a debate over pot vs alcohol, pot is actually less likely to impair your judgement than booze. I spend several years as a probation officer and alcohol was a much bigger problem in terms of the probationers doing stupid things than pot ever was.
Besides, as someone else already said in a comment, I don’t recall the 2A setting out specifics about your health, age or habits as conditions to exercise your right to own and bear a gun. Mental illness? Sure thing. A definite reason to reconsider the right to carry, but outside of that I just don’t see weed as an issue.
Comments are closed.