this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2024
130 points (99.2% liked)

Trees

6633 readers
8 users here now

A community centered around cannabis.

In the spirit of making Trees a welcoming and uplifting place for everyone, please follow our Commandments.

  1. Be Cool.
  2. I'm not kidding. Be nice to each other.
  3. Avoid low-effort posts

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The biggest change this will create, it is illegal for someone taking schedule 1 drugs to own or possess a firearm. Even if you get a medical card, or it is legal for recreational use, it would still be a felony to have a gun.

Now, guns and drugs are a bad combination. But there are a lot of people who would rather keep their guns than try marijuana even if prescribed by a doctor.

[–] higgsboson@dubvee.org 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

That is not the case. Cannabis would still be a federally illegal drug (controlled substances act) and thereby users are prohibitited from owning firearms. This includes all Schedule 1-5 drugs.

see:

21 U.S.C. § 802

and

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Under schedule 3, legal prescriptions would not be considered unlawful use.

Besides, I've learned since writing my previous comment that the SCOTUS has invalidated laws prohibiting gun ownership based on previous drug use. So I was wrong from the jump, but for different reasons.

[–] higgsboson@dubvee.org 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Under schedule 3, legal prescriptions would not be considered unlawful use.

Prescriptions are a tiny fraction of cannabis use, but that would still be a major positive change.

I've learned since writing my previous comment that the SCOTUS has invalidated laws prohibiting gun ownership based on previous drug use.

... citation needed. U.S. v. Daniels was the 5th Circuit (and not applicable to most of the country,) it was not SCOTUS. After Bruen, many consider such likely to be struck down if it reaches SCOTUS, but that has not happened (nor has it even been granted cert, afaik.)

What SCOTUS did hear this term was US v Rahimi, which deals with an adjacent topic, but the prohibited person in that case was subject to a domestic restraining order.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me, especially citing the statutes. I only know it's been a big deal in Pennsylvania, with the conservatives threatening to go after the guns of people who get prescription cards. It's prescription only here.

[–] spez_@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

No guns... waaaa