(9th Circuit) United States v. Dugan: Prohibition against drug users affirmed, BUT...

[Decoligny]

That could get sticky if Oregon, Utah or Wisconsin ever passes one of their perennial bills to make nicotine (or caffeine) a controlled substance.

Controlled Substance is probably clearly defined somewhere in the Federal Law. Most likely something along the lines of "A Controlled Substance is defined as any substance listed in Subsection XXX of Section XX of USC XX-XXX.

There is almost definetly a complete list of what is and what is not a controlled substance in regards to Federal Law.

[Wherryj]

what constitutes a drug?

http://www.pdr.com/

Oh, perhaps the court needs to be a bit more specific on that one?

[GaryV]

I think the two bigger issues here are 1) what defines "quit using" and 2) what is the justification for removing such people's rights?

On the first one, there would need to be a legal definition of how long you have to be drug-free to be considered to have "quit", or it is a stupid and meaningless decision. At one extreme, if the time between any two consecutive uses, regardless of length, is not "quit", then this would equate to a lifetime ban, since we can't predict whether someone would ever use again. one single illegal use would create a lifetime ban. At the other extreme, is simply not having a detectable amount of the drug in you system count as "quit"? So, someone could alternate days between doing meth and carrying a gun? Without some kind of completely arbitrary time off the drug, like 30 days, 90 days, 1 year, etc., the ruling is just stupid. Of course, it still is, because how do you (or the government) prove whether you've been drug-free for the requisite time, assuming they do set some standard?

On the second point, why should "illegal users of a controlled substance" have their constitutional rights voided? Is it because they are impaired? Lots of legal drugs cause the same or worse impairment. In fact, most of these controlled substances are used legally far more often than illegally. After all, a controlled substance is any drug for which you need a prescription. So, what's the difference between your friend, who is taking Tylenol 3 after a tooth extraction (a legal user), and you, who borrow one from him because you have a splitting headache (an illegal user)?

Or maybe it's because they're breaking the law. But then, wouldn't the government have to prove that first, before the prohibition would have any meaning? And once they did, you'd be a convicted felon, and prohibited anyway. And if you are a felon, even if not caught and convicted, why should you automatically get your rights back just by stopping your criminal activity, when any other felon who does get caught is banned for life?

Personally I've always believed that the very concept of "prohibited person" is idiotic and unconstitutional. This class, and particularly this ruling pertaining to this class, show just how stupid the concept really is. You can't create different levels of basic human rights. Either you have them, or you don't. And if you are dangerous enough that you can't be trusted with them, you should be locked up somewhere.

[Crom]

Erik, We discussed Yancey here last year. I don't think it's a bad case. It makes good sense to me at least.

SeeUnited States v. Burchard, 580 F.3d 341, 352 (6th Cir. 2009); United States v. Patterson, 431 F.3d 832, 839 (5th Cir. 2005).

[Curley Red]

Since it's a federal restriction, I would think whatever the feds deem to be illegal counts, so your state MJ card carries no weight.

I know that some states do allow a person with a MJ card to carry since the carry permit is state issued not federally issued.

But then again it will vary from sheriff to sheriff until someone sues about it like they did in Oregon.

[Decoligny]

I know that some states do allow a person with a MJ card to carry since the carry permit is state issued not federally issued.

The state may not care, but if you fill out the Federal form for buying a gun and they find out you lied on it (drug use question), you could be in a world of Federal hurt.

[Window_Seat]

I'm sure glad that the Feds are destroying the lives of pot head gun owners, rather than going after people legally drinking alcohol and then driving home from the bar at night. It makes me feel so much safer, especially knowing that so many of us are still dividing ideas by party...

Erik.

[Kharn]

How many (hard) drug users do not have a criminal record that, on its own, would prohibit them from possessing firearm?

[Anchors]

Marijuana is addictive. Your body may not necessarily become physically dependent on it, but that isn't the only definition of addiction.
You can certainly be mentally and emotionally addicted to marijuana. Many of its habitual users are (in my experience. Try taking it away for a day and see what happens to their emotions).

There's also this: Marijuana use linked to risk of psychotic symptoms.

People can say it isn't a drug all they want, but it is a drug.
Then again, so is caffeine (which is a particularly nastier one at that).

You can draw that line for yourself about what you choose to put in your body, but the facts remain that is IS a drug and IS unlawful under current federal law.
Weed is an infraction in California without a card, still unlawful.
Weed is illegal federally everywhere, still unlawful even with a card.

If it were legalized tomorrow and buy guns while being addicted to it, I still wouldn't touch the stuff. But that is just me.

[oni.dori]

The state may not care, but if you fill out the Federal form for buying a gun and they find out you lied on it (drug use question), you could be in a world of Federal hurt.

This.

I think it's funny that a lot of people with them don't realize (or refuse to admit) that even thought a local LEO can't arrest them for it, they are still commiting a FEDERAL crime, and could be arrested by ICE, DEA, BATFE, FBI, or a Marshall. They just think it is an all-encompassing "get out of jail free" card.

[HBrebel]

2A-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
that is a message to the feds. If your state has legalized 420, it is not a controlled substance in that state. The federal government should have no power to interfere in state business unless requested by that state. If one is legally using MM then you simply mark NO on the question that asks "do you use any controlled substances. Right?

[vincewarde]

Hey, this is a good thing!

As someone who has worked with addicts, I think this is a well thought out decision. Do we really want people impaired by RECREATIONAL drug use to be buying guns?

Personally, I would like to see us change the tactics on the war on drugs from criminalization to discouragement. Our current tactics are not working, in fact they cause more problems then they are worth. The one drug we are winning the fight against is tobacco - and we have done it through discouragement.

In addition to discouragement, we could take a small portion of what we spend on enforcement and direct it to rehab.

I hope that we can continue to prohibit those who are regularly impaired by recreational drug use from gun possession. Obviously, the burden of proof should be on the government.

Just my .02

[GaryV]

Do we really want people impaired by RECREATIONAL drug use to be buying guns?

You mean like drinkers? Or are you implying that impairment by illicit drugs or by illegal recreational use of legal drugs is somehow worse than impairment by legal recreational use of legal drugs or non-recreational use? Isn't impaired impaired? Does being whacked out on vicodin because it's prescribed somehow make you less or differently impaired than if your whacked out on it just to enjoy the buzz? Aren't drunks just as likely to make stupid decisions and act irrationally as pot smokers? Obviously impairment alone is not the justification for this law. It's about denying rights to people we don't like.

[Ubermcoupe]

Assuming drug abuse = LT Ban, could rights be restored through other legal avenues?

It would be interesting (actually it would crappy) to see how many people would fall under this "umbrella"

[vincewarde]

You mean like drinkers? Or are you implying that impairment by illicit drugs or by illegal recreational use of legal drugs is somehow worse than impairment by legal recreational use of legal drugs or non-recreational use? Isn't impaired impaired? Does being whacked out on vicodin because it's prescribed somehow make you less or differently impaired than if your whacked out on it just to enjoy the buzz? Aren't drunks just as likely to make stupid decisions and act irrationally as pot smokers? Obviously impairment alone is not the justification for this law. It's about denying rights to people we don't like.

I guess the key to what I am saying is these two words: Impaired and recreational. In my book BOTH conditions have to be met. I would also have to add one more condition: Regularly. So if someone is so bad that the government can PROVE that you are REGULARLY IMPAIRED by your RECREATIONAL drugs, I think, IMHO that should constitute a prohibiting condition.

Now think about it. For those three conditions to be met AND PROVEN, you really have to have a huge problem.

Also remember that the upside of this is that we do away all the drug prohibitions. No more ban on pot, or meth or you name it. If you want to use these in a responsible way, as some people use alcohol today, go ahead. If you want to get stoned in your own home, go ahead.

I think sanctions should come into play only when your actions begin to negatively affect others. At what point we do that should be discussed and debated for a long time - but anything would be an improvement over the current situation.

Again, just my opinion - and I have been wrong before.