Medical Marijuana Legal.

well it does state on 4473-11e "Unlawful", now if some thing becomes "Legal", it's no longer "Unlawful", but one of the "legal eagles" on TFL could explain it better.
 
It's my understanding that the Federal government can not 'legalize' Marijuana due to international treaties that we are signatory to...

Not sure how that will affect the ATF interpretation of this new wrinkle of 'medical Marijuana'...
 
The OP's question is about changes to federal law.


I haven't read the text in the spending bill, so I don't know if it actually decriminalizes medical marijuana or just stops funding of enforcement of federal laws against it.
 
Last edited:
As long as it is a DEA Schedule I controlled substance, it remains a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 922(g)(3) for a person who is an "unlawful user of or addicted to" marijuana to possess a firearm.

According to the news reports I've read, this law does NOT reclassify marijuana. All it does is prohibit federal agencies from raiding state-licensed medical marijuana dispensaries. AFAIK it remains a violation of federal law for someone who uses the substance to possess a firearm, whether the use is for medicinal or recreational purposes. (The use of pot. Not the gun. ;) )
 
Last edited:
In Nevada alcohol is not only legal, due to the casinos, there is no drinking curfew. But it is a crime to be carrying while intoxicated. I assume, when and if marijuana becomes legal here, it will be treated similarly.
 
Congress didn't make medical marijuana legal. Congress stopped funding enforcement. From the bill:

538.None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, to prevent such States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.
 
steve4102 said:
According to this article in the LA Times there is a provision in the New spending bill that would make Medical Marijuana "Legal"....
Click to expand...
Apparently not. See below.

2damnold4this said:
Congress didn't make medical marijuana legal. Congress stopped funding enforcement. From the bill:...
Click to expand...
This is not the same as making marijuana legal.

Marijuana is illegal under federal law because it is a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act (21 USC 801, et seq). That means that under federal law it may not be prescribed, used or possessed. It also means that under federal law any user of marijuana is a an unlawful user of a controlled substance, even if legal under state law, and is therefore an unlawful user of a controlled substance prohibited from possessing a gun or ammunition under 18 USC 922(g)(3).

So while Congress may withhold funds for routine enforcement of federal marijuana laws in some States, marijuana possession and use remains illegal under federal law. Furthermore, there's apparent nothing in the bill that would foreclose enforcement of federal guns laws, including investigation, arrest, and prosecution of gun possession by prohibited persons.

So carguychris is right on the money:
carguychris said:
As long as it is a DEA Schedule I controlled substance, it remains a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 922(d)(3) for a person who is an "unlawful user of or addicted to" marijuana to possess a firearm....
Click to expand...

Bella said:
In Nevada alcohol is not only legal, due to the casinos, there is no drinking curfew. But it is a crime to be carrying while intoxicated. I assume, when and if marijuana becomes legal here, it will be treated similarly.
Click to expand...
As discussed above, there's no reason to assume that. And as a matter of federal law, at least, legalization of marijuana by a State doesn't change the fact that marijuana is illegal under federal law.

silvermane_1 said:
well it does state on 4473-11e "Unlawful", now if some thing becomes "Legal", it's no longer "Unlawful", but one of the "legal eagles" on TFL could explain it better.
Click to expand...
And as explained above, marijuana remains illegal under federal law, so nothing has changed.
 
In Nevada alcohol is not only legal, due to the casinos, there is no drinking curfew. But it is a crime to be carrying while intoxicated. I assume, when and if marijuana becomes legal here, it will be treated similarly.
Click to expand...

Nevada has a restriction against carrying with a BAC over .10 which is a higher level then you can drive with (.08)

Currently there is no test for level of intox with pot like there is with booze. Colorado is struggling with this issue now.
 
2damnold4this said:
Congress didn't make medical marijuana legal. Congress stopped funding enforcement. From the bill:

538.None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, to prevent such States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.
Click to expand...

Thanks
 
If that's the case, the prohibition on marijuana is about to become one of the most useless of all types of laws: the ones only enforced when the use suits somebody.

For instance, I've been told that there has never been a conviction made for violation of the Gun Free School Zone Act, except for one attached to another crime - sometimes actually threatening someone with a gun in a school zone, but also things like being pulled over in a school zone with drugs in the car and the charge added in to trump it up.

Seems like the same thing's going to happen here. Sally, a woman who "legally" partakes in her state's medical marijuana program, fills out a Form 4473 and affirms she is not addicted to or a user of an illegal drug. Why would she even think twice about it? It's legal in that state.

Except in that case, would she not also risk being charged for answering untruthfully on a federal form?
 
dakota.potts said:
If that's the case, the prohibition on marijuana is about to become one of the most useless of all types of laws: the ones only enforced when the use suits somebody....
Click to expand...
Well, that is the case.

There's a difference between enforcing federal marijuana laws and enforcing federal gun laws. A federal agent might not bust you for lighting up that doobie on the street corner, but if you're also openly packing a roscoe he just might for being a prohibited person in possession of a gun.

dakota.potts said:
...Seems like the same thing's going to happen here. Sally, a woman who "legally" partakes in her state's medical marijuana program, fills out a Form 4473 and affirms she is not addicted to or a user of an illegal drug. Why would she even think twice about it? It's legal in that state.

Except in that case, would she not also risk being charged for answering untruthfully on a federal form?
Click to expand...
Yes, she would. That means she should have made a greater effort to educate herself about the law. The correct information is out there and available.
 
A federal agent might not bust you for lighting up that doobie on the street corner, but if you're also openly packing a roscoe he just might
Click to expand...
Don't confuse me with all that technical legal jargon! ;)

("Roscoe?")

Dakota, a selectively-enforced law is anything but useless. It's a dangerous tool to be used capriciously and unfairly.
 
Tom, maybe I should be more clear. I believe a law is useless when it serves no interest UV providing for the general welfare of society. A law kept on the books indefinitely, well past its regular and accepted enforcement, but still used perniciously when it suits an agenda is useless to society and very harmful to liberty in my opinion.

What do you think the chances are of getting the controlled substance abuse act amended to protect our constitutional rights since the law will apparently no longer be enforced federally if the state has laws about it? Or of a federal court ruling that barring one for firearms use for such a program is against our rights?
 
What do you think the chances are of getting the controlled substance abuse act amended to protect our constitutional rights
Click to expand...
The Act doesn't need to be amended. They just need to move marijuana from Schedule I. This can be done via federal registration, or it can be done directly by the DEA.

since the law will apparently no longer be enforced federally if the state has laws about it?
Click to expand...
This is what worries me. At the moment, we have a situation in which a state says their agents aren't going to prosecute certain behaviors within their borders. It's a dangerous illusion, however. What happens if someone purchases something "legal" under Colorado law, but makes the mistake of taking it into Nebraska? Nebraska can prosecute. Furthermore, federal trafficking charges can be brought.

(And just wait until some unfortunate soul gets caught trying to board a plane with it.)

At the moment, federal law enforcement have been directed to ease up on enforcement, but that's subject to the current whim of the current administration.

My issue is with the illusion of safety these state-level "legalization" laws present.
 
Tom Servo said:
My issue is with the illusion of safety these state-level "legalization" laws present.
Click to expand...

What's illusory about them? The guarantees they provide are as real as the laws of other jurisdictions which prosecute them. Crossing into another state's (or the Fed's) jurisdiction is out of the hands of the state, and surely you don't expect the state to babysit residents each time they consider traveling outside the state?

"Hi, we're pulling you over before you can leave Colorado as a courtesy. You have CO plates so we're assuming you're a resident, and wish to remind you to consider the laws on the other side of the border before you cross. Free legal advice is available next to the bathrooms at the rest stop, as well as rental lockers and a post office should you wish to mail certain items back home."

or at the airport, a big computer screen:

"If you're traveling to:

California: Leave your carry gun here, and all magazines with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds, marijuana with a doctor's prescription OK.
Copenhagen: All marijuana OK for any reason, but all firearms must remain here.
Dallas: All firearms OK, no marijuana
Denpasar: Only pistols without suppressors. no marijuana.
Dubai: No marijuana, guns or bibles. Women must be covered from head to toe.

etc"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top