U.S. v. YANCEY U.S. Appl. 7th Cir. Drug habbit and guns = bad. Affirmed.

[Scott Connors]

Two points:

1. I wish I was as sure of my opinions regarding nature v nurture as you.

2. It seems you would deny anyone who ever used any substance, legal or not, to the point of intoxication (whoever decides that?), access to arms at any time. Is that your position?

1. Like anyone, I base my opinions upon a mixture of education and experience. As someone who works in the mental health area, I've seen things most people haven't. For the record, I lean more toward the nurture side of the equation, but to ignore that nature has a part in how we turn out is IMO to wear ideological blinders and deny reality. I think we can exercise our free will (let's not get into an argument about that!) to avoid things that might cause problems. For example, I have a family history of alcoholism, so I decided not to drink. Most people don't have that problem.
2. No, just anyone who is currently using. "Intoxication" is whatever the legal definition is, which I think deals with impairment physical and thought processes. A lifetime ban would be hard to justify.

For what it's worth, I think that this court decision was wrong: unless he was in possession of a firearm while at the same either actively intoxicated or in actual possession of the marijuana, I don't think that his conviction was justified. Marijuana may be no more harmful than alcohol, and I support its decriminalization on grounds that the so-called "war on drugs" is causing more harm to our liberties than the actual drug use, but that's not to say that it (or alcohol) is harmless. If someone uses a gun while high, regardless of their drug of choice, they ought to be slammed for using it, not mere possession (unless they're a felon of course).

[anthonyca]

Let me start by saying that I do not use pot. I never have. But a long time ago in a galaxy far away I decided it would be fun to see how the world of medical MJ really worked. I also thought having a prescription might help if someone decided to drop a bag on me.

A friend took me to a clinic in Berkeley. I saw an honest to gosh CA licensed MD. I told him I had back pain (which I did) and I would prefer an herbal remedy as opposed to synthetic opiates. I lied on that one, I I love opiates. If it were as easy to get a script for morphine as it is for MJ I would probably be in big trouble. Luckily it's not.

I got a proscription for MJ. It was written on a regular prescription pad and looks just like the ones I have for blood pressure meds. I still have it, never used it. The process was laughably easy. But then going to the doc and getting a script for Vicodine or soma is just as easy if you think about it.

I think it's a legal prescription and it would take more than one persons word to convince me otherwise.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich?wasRedirected=true

It doesn't matter what California or we think. The FEDERAL government still says its illegal.

[Meplat]

As much as I love to disagree with you, you are correct on this one. Alcohol effects different people in different ways. Some people get volant and mean when they have had too much alcohol. Pot, not that I have heard of.

The bottom line for me is that I'd be much more comfortable with a gun-toting pot smoker around than with a gun-toting drunk. So why is gun ownership allowed for drinkers but not for MJ smokers?

The cultural bias is obvious here, and whether you like it or not, some people will work to change that.

[Meplat]

We have little or no disagreement. Beyond the fact that I lean a little more toward the nature side. But, that is only opinion without substantiation.

1. Like anyone, I base my opinions upon a mixture of education and experience. As someone who works in the mental health area, I've seen things most people haven't. For the record, I lean more toward the nurture side of the equation, but to ignore that nature has a part in how we turn out is IMO to wear ideological blinders and deny reality. I think we can exercise our free will (let's not get into an argument about that!) to avoid things that might cause problems. For example, I have a family history of alcoholism, so I decided not to drink. Most people don't have that problem.
2. No, just anyone who is currently using. "Intoxication" is whatever the legal definition is, which I think deals with impairment physical and thought processes. A lifetime ban would be hard to justify.

For what it's worth, I think that this court decision was wrong: unless he was in possession of a firearm while at the same either actively intoxicated or in actual possession of the marijuana, I don't think that his conviction was justified. Marijuana may be no more harmful than alcohol, and I support its decriminalization on grounds that the so-called "war on drugs" is causing more harm to our liberties than the actual drug use, but that's not to say that it (or alcohol) is harmless. If someone uses a gun while high, regardless of their drug of choice, they ought to be slammed for using it, not mere possession (unless they're a felon of course).

[GrizzlyGuy]

I think it's a legal prescription and it would take more than one persons word to convince me otherwise.

OK, how about an opinion from MarijuanaNews.com:

[the_quark]

I think we can exercise our free will (let's not get into an argument about that!)

[Meplat]

Very interesting stuff there. Seems like a lot of semantic nit picking to me, albeit nit picking that could lead to prosecution. I don't really care except from a philosophical point of view. The federal government should only be able to infringe on state law in order to protect liberty, not diminish it.

OK, how about an opinion from MarijuanaNews.com:

[nicki]

7th circuit.

Maybe it is me, but isn't the 7th circuit the same circuit that just got overturned by the SCOTUS on MacDonald due to the fact that they thought Crunshiak was valid case law?

And I am curious as to what exactly constitutes a "Habitual Drug Abuser".

Like it or not, the roots of both gun control and marijuana laws wasn't "public safety", it was racism.

Let's bring on a "real post racist" society and eliminate the last of the Jim Crow Era racists laws.

Nicki

[GrizzlyGuy]

And I am curious as to what exactly constitutes a "Habitual Drug Abuser".

For us here in the 9th circuit, see United States v. Purdy. That case is discussed in this article over at The Volokh Conspiracy:

Unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance. A person who uses a controlled substance and has lost the power of self-control with reference to the use of controlled substance; and any person who is a current user of a controlled substance in a manner other than as prescribed by a licensed physician. Such use is not limited to the use of drugs on a particular day, or within a matter of days or weeks before, but rather that the unlawful use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct. A person may be an unlawful current user of a controlled substance even though the substance is not being used at the precise time the person seeks to acquire a firearm or receives or possesses a firearm. An inference of current use may be drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers the present time, e.g., a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; multiple arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years if the most recent arrest occurred within the past year; or persons found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided that the test was administered within the past year. For a current or former member of the Armed Forces, an inference of current use may be drawn from recent disciplinary or other administrative action based on confirmed drug use, e.g., court-martial conviction, nonjudicial punishment, or an administrative discharge based on drug use or drug rehabilitation failure.

[Crom]

Excellent post GrizzlyGuy.

[TatankaGap]

OK, I need a little education.

Does that phrase about "because it is substantially related to the important governmental interest in preventing violent crime" mean that they applied "intermediate scrutiny", or is that "rational basis"? It didn't sound to me like that would be "strict scrutiny".

This is the point - everyone who is distracted by this case and medical marijuana is missing the point -

The anti-2A 7th Cir that got overruled in MacDonald wants to get its decision in on making it intermediate scrutiny and not strict scrutiny - NOT OK

for comparison - re: 1st Amendment cases, the courts apply strict scrutiny to individual speech like public protest and intermediate scrutiny to commercial speech like advertising.

How a court can think that individual 2A rights are more like advertising by a corporation than public protest and expression by an individual, I don't know and can't imagine. Then again, from a court based in Chicago, I'm not surprised -

I hope Gura and NRA and SAF etc are all over this nationwide and are bringing up cases to split the circuits and go back to SCOTUS on what test to apply -