Medical marijuana and license to carry

[Tacgunner]

This is easy. You have no inalienable rights. The govt can, if it desires, and the circumstances are right, deprive you of ALL of your rights...whether or not it has the authority to do so is irrelevant.

And there is the problem: when this happens, you no longer have a government. Government is a tool of the people, not the other way around. Reducing government size is a start, but reducing its "scope", or "reach" is another problem we have.

[free]

And there is the problem: when this happens, you no longer have a government. Government is a tool of the people, not the other way around. Reducing government size is a start, but reducing its "scope", or "reach" is another problem we have.

It is worth pointing out that government not the only entity that can deprive you of your rights. Virtually person on Earth can do so.

Inalienable rights are an intellectual construct. A theoretical state of being. It's a perfectly fine theory too - but they don't actually exist.

[dkf]

Theoretically anyway one would be better off forgetting about the card, buy it, use it and keeping your mouth shut about it.

[Tacgunner]

It is worth pointing out that government not the only entity that can deprive you of your rights. Virtually person on Earth can do so.

Inalienable rights are an intellectual construct. A theoretical state of being. It's a perfectly fine theory too - but they don't actually exist.

Theory and constructs are all fine & dandy, but I'm a nuts & bolts guy. The convolution of laws we have to weave thru in our daily reality is simply out of control anymore. Too many layers of regulations. Too many unintended consequences of these laws. Simple is good.

And no, we aren't going to stroll down that rabbit hole by Nietzche about "reality" either.........

[free]

The convolution of laws we have to weave thru in our daily reality is simply out of control anymore. Too many layers of regulations. Too many unintended consequences of these laws.

No arguments here (:

[Carson]

Or how about as so called "free Americans", we allow grown ass adults and their doctors decide what treatment is best for them?
I guess that's just too much freedom to ask for.

You mean like all of the ‘Pill Mill’ doctors hooking up all of their oxy patients ?

[Ricochet]

You mean like all of the ‘Pill Mill’ doctors hooking up all of their oxy patients ?

Youre on the front lines.
What happened immediately after all of those doctors got shut down?
All of those patients went to heroin which as you know is far far worse, causes far more damage to the user, family and neighborhoods.
We need to realize that arresting youre way out of a drug problem in America is only make the problem worse.
Instead of being monitored by a physician, those same people are now supporting the violent black market drug dealers and making your job as an officer more dangerous and difficult.

[Exbiker]

The question isn't quite that precise (:

From the Monroe County form. An unlawful user of narcotics would also be a person with a script but using not as directed by the physician.

"F. ARE YOU AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS A HABITUAL DRUNKARD, OR WHO IS ADDICTED TO OR AN UNLAWFUL USER OF
MARIJUANA OR A STIMULANT, DEPRESSANT, OR NARCOTIC DRUG? "

[JenniferG]

Most of the recent (last 20 years or so) mass shooters were users of psychotropic drugs. They were prescribed by doctors. Doctors are also the ones prescribing the opioid pills that have become such a problem. Now potheads have doctors to prescribe pot for potheads. It seems things are going right along to plan. It's truly an amazing thing to see history repeating itself in such a way that it is easily predictable.

[free]

From the Monroe County form. An unlawful user of narcotics would also be a person with a script but using not as directed by the physician.

"F. ARE YOU AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS A HABITUAL DRUNKARD, OR WHO IS ADDICTED TO OR AN UNLAWFUL USER OF
MARIJUANA OR A STIMULANT, DEPRESSANT, OR NARCOTIC DRUG? "

Right. Which is much less precise than "do you smoke weed?" (:

It asks if you are a user. It's not interested in the particular way you use it (smoking, eating, injecting, etc.).

But on that note....it IS an interesting question. You're asking someone if they are an "unlawful user". To answer that question correctly, you'd have to know the law. I venture to say, the average person does NOT know the law about a great many things. That's not accepted as an excuse for not following the law of course, but it is very possible someone could answer that question, a legal question, to the best of their ability and in a good faith fashion, and still be wrong about their answer. Being wrong about an answer that requires knowledge of the law doesn't equate to a lie. Hell, even being wrong about a fact that you sincerely believe is true doesn't equate to a lie.

Consider the applicant's thought process:

• I'm not well versed in America's dual-system of government, nor the doctrine of Federal supremacy with respect to conflicts in Federal and State laws
• I am a user of pot
• The State issued me this card that says I am allowed to buy and use pot
• The doctor gave me this piece of paper authorizing me to get pot
• I got this pot from a business that is licensed by the State to sell pot
• The State collects tax revenue from the sale of the pot I bought
• I'm obviously NOT an unlawful user of pot

If that were presented to me and I were on the jury, it's an easy "not guilty".