Connect with us

Cannabis News

Cannabis Law and Gun Rights: News from SCOTUS

Published

on


Last week, the US Supreme Court decided its most recent Second Amendment case, United States v. Rahimi. Earlier this month, SCOTUS decided Garland v. Cargill, which could also spell changes for the cannabis industry later down the road. I wrote about the Rahimi case in earlier posts, as the outcome of the case could have affected gun rights for cannabis users. Today, I want to break down some key things about the Rahimi and Cargill decisions and what they mean for the future of gun rights for cannabis users. If you’re not familiar with the issues or my writing on them, I suggest you first read some of these posts:

What is the deal with cannabis users and gun rights?

Federal law defines cannabis users as “prohibited persons” who cannot own or possess guns, regardless of the Second Amendment. In 2022, the US Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, creating a new test to evaluate whether a law restricting gun rights is constitutional. Since then, a number of federal courts have held that federal restrictions on gun rights for cannabis users are unconstitutional. One of those cases was appealed to the Supreme Court earlier this year.

What happened in the Rahimi case?

In the Rahimi case, different provisions of the same federal law were challenged. Specifically, the issue was whether a person subject to a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) could be deemed a “prohibited person.” A federal appellate court last year held that the DVRO prohibition was unconstitutional, but in an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court disagreed. As a result, persons subject to DVROs may not own firearms.

Without getting too far into the weeds, SCOTUS did what Bruen required it to do: examined historical laws regulating firearm possession and determined that there is a history of laws justifying restriction of gun ownership by persons adjudged pose a threat of violence to others.

Is Rahimi relevant to cannabis users?

Yes and no. To start, Rahimi does not mention cannabis use at all, as it is narrowly focused on a different federal restriction on gun possession by persons subject to DVROs. Additionally, Rahimi does not backtrack from the Bruen decision, which is the same SCOTUS decision that has allowed numerous federal courts to find the federal cannabis law restrictions unlawful.

Turning back to the lower court decisions that have addressed cannabis, the federal government has consistently argued (generally unsuccessfully) that federal gun restrictions are justified because cannabis users pose some kind of unique risk or threat. In fact, in its brief in opposition to SCOTUS granting review to the cannabis run rights case mentioned above, the federal government wrote “armed drug users pose a grave danger to themselves and to society.”

I can imagine that attorneys for the federal government will argue that Rahimi‘s rationale supports federal restrictions on cannabis users’ Second Amendment rights. But I think Rahimi is very distinct from the present situation as the restriction with respect to cannabis users is so much more broad than the DVRO restriction.

The federal law that restricts cannabis users’ Second Amendment rights has no requirement that a person be found to be a danger to themselves or others. Indeed it applies whether or not they are a even intoxicated at or around the time of a gun purchase or possession. This is vastly more broad than the DVRO restriction, which applies to someone is subject to a court order that:

  1. was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
  2. restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
    1. includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
    2.  by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury . . . .

As you can see, this is a far, far more exacting standard than is applied to drug users, who are categorically denied Second Amendment rights.

With that in mind, and given the total lack of historical prohibition on cannabis users owning guns, it’s pretty easy to see how courts would have an easy job dismissing claims that cannabis users are so dangerous that the government is justified taking away their constitutional rights.

My prediction on a SCOTUS cannabis/gun rights decision

If SCOTUS hears a case challenging federal restrictions on gun rights for cannabis users, I predict that the law is struck down, something I’ve predicted in basically every post I’ve made on the subject since Bruen. However, in light of a different SCOTUS gun case, I think that language in the decision could set up later battles between the federal government and cannabis users.

Now let’s talk about Cargill. In that case, SCOTUS held that ATF regulations that prohibited bump stocks were unconstitutional. ATF had issued rules prohibiting bump stocks on the grounds that they constitute “machineguns” under the federal law that prohibits machine guns. The Court concluded that bump stocks are not “machineguns” within the meaning of the statute, and so ATF had exceeded its authority in issuing the rule.

In Cargill, Justice Samuel Alito issued a concurring opinion in which he agreed that bump stocks do not constitute “machineguns” but noted that:

There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bump stocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the law—and perhaps would have done so already if ATF had stuck with its earlier interpretation. Now that the situation is clear, Congress can act.

In other words, Justice Alito signaled that Congress could remedy the situation by prohibiting bump stocks via legislation, which would allow ATF to prohibit them in the future.

Why is this relevant to cannabis? While it seems likely that SCOTUS would strike down federal gun rights restrictions for cannabis users, it seems equally likely that the Court could indicate that restrictions that were narrowly tailored to prevent cannabis users from possessing guns while intoxicated could be constitutional.

Depending on who is President and the composition of Congress, its easy to see how federal legislation could be enacted that would prohibit intoxicating cannabis users from using or possessing guns. But as with anything else, it’s easy to see how this could lead to future challenges. What does it mean to be “intoxicated,” for example?

Conclusion

SCOTUS’s recent gun rights decisions don’t change a whole lot for cannabis users, but they do reveal a few key things that could change the game dramatically in the coming years. For more updates, stay tuned to the Canna Law Blog.



Source link

Cannabis News

America’s Constitutional Conundrum: Guns and Ganja

Published

on

By


gun rights and medical marijuana

Of Guns and Ganja: America’s Constitutional Conundrum

 

If there’s one thing America is famous for, it’s guns – and lots of ’em! In the land of the free and home of the brave, firearms aren’t just a right, they’re practically a national pastime. With over 400 million firearms floating around a nation of 330 million people, it’s safe to say that guns are as American as apple pie and baseball.

But you know what else Americans love? Drugs. The US remains the world’s largest drug market, with an particularly passionate affair with cannabis. Mary Jane has come a long way since the “Just Say No” propaganda of the D.A.R.E. days. Now, millions of Americans legally light up in their home states, transforming from “criminals” to “consumers” faster than you can say “tax revenue.”

Here’s where things get sticky though. Despite the Biden administration’s vague promises of reform, cannabis remains stubbornly classified as a Schedule I substance at the federal level. This creates a peculiar predicament for freedom-loving Americans who appreciate both their Second Amendment rights and their evening toke.

You see, there’s this obscure interpretation of federal law that says if you consume cannabis – even legally in your state – you’re technically not allowed to own firearms. Let that sink in for a moment: in a country with more guns than people, where cannabis is legally sold in most states, you’re forced to choose between your constitutional right to bear arms and your state-sanctioned right to consume a plant.

As you might imagine, telling Americans they can’t have their guns AND their ganja isn’t exactly going over well. It’s a uniquely American saga that pits state rights against federal law, personal freedom against bureaucratic overreach, and common sense against, well… whatever you’d call this situation.

Let’s dive into this bizarre legal battleground where constitutional rights and cannabis collide.

As America’s cannabis landscape evolves, we’re witnessing a fascinating legal tug-of-war between state sovereignty and federal authority. The latest battleground? The constitutional rights of cannabis consumers to bear arms.

In a groundbreaking decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently reaffirmed that banning occasional marijuana users from owning firearms is unconstitutional. The case, known as U.S. v. Daniels, centers around a man who was sentenced to four years in prison after police found trace amounts of cannabis and firearms during a routine traffic stop. Talk about wrong place, wrong time!

The federal government, particularly under the Biden administration, has been performing some impressive mental gymnastics to justify their position. Their argument? Cannabis users with guns “endanger public safety,” “pose a greater risk of suicide,” and are more likely to commit crimes “to fund their drug habit.” They’ve even argued that cannabis consumers are “unlikely to store their weapons properly.” I guess they never met my ex-military uncle who meticulously organizes his gun safe while enjoying his evening edible.

But here’s where it gets really interesting. The Department of Justice claims the restriction is perfectly constitutional because it aligns with the nation’s history of disarming “dangerous” individuals. They’re essentially putting cannabis users in the same category as folks with domestic violence restraining orders. As someone who’s spent considerable time around both cannabis users and domestic abusers (professionally, of course), I can tell you there’s a slight difference in temperament.

The courts, however, aren’t buying it. As the Fifth Circuit pointed out, the government failed to prove that Daniels was “presently or even regularly intoxicated at the time of arrest.” They noted that even if the government had proven frequent intoxication, they offered “no Founding-era law or practice of disarming ordinary citizens ‘even if their intoxication was routine.'”

The ruling doesn’t completely invalidate the federal statute (known as § 922(g)(3)), but it does expose its shaky constitutional foundation. As the court stated, “This is not a windfall for defendants charged under § 922(g)(3),” but rather a recognition that the government’s enforcement approach is fundamentally flawed.

Meanwhile, the National Rifle Association (NRA) – not exactly known for their progressive stance on substances – acknowledges the absurdity of the situation. They point out that “marijuana use is no longer limited to the domain of indigenous religious customs or youth-oriented counterculture and now includes a wide variety of people who use it for medicinal or recreational reasons.” When even the NRA is suggesting your gun control measure might be a bit extreme, you know something’s amiss.

The result of all this legal wrangling? A patchwork of confusion where state-legal cannabis users must choose between their Second Amendment rights and their medicine or recreational preference. It’s a prime example of how federal prohibition creates more problems than it solves, forcing otherwise law-abiding citizens to become unwitting criminals simply for exercising multiple legal rights simultaneously.

Welcome to America, folks, where you can have your guns or your ganja, but apparently not both – at least until the courts finish sorting out this constitutional cannabis conundrum.

Let me be blunt – we’re caught in a classic American political pretzel. The Biden administration dangles the carrot of rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III, making vague promises that sound good on the campaign trail but do little to address the fundamental issues plaguing cannabis consumers, including their right to bear arms.

While some celebrate these baby steps toward reform, I’ve been around this block enough times to know that rescheduling is like putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. It might stop some bleeding, but it doesn’t address the underlying trauma. The gun rights issue is just one of many complications that arise from cannabis’s continued inclusion in the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: there’s only one real solution, and it runs straight through the halls of Congress. The same body that created this mess with the CSA in 1971 is the only one with the power to truly fix it. Congress needs to completely remove cannabis from the CSA – not reschedule it, not modify its status, but fully deschedule it.

Think about it. Rescheduling to Schedule III would still leave cannabis in a weird legal limbo. Sure, it might make research easier and give Big Pharma more room to play, but what about the millions of Americans who use cannabis medicinally or recreationally in their state-legal markets? They’d still be federal criminals, still banned from purchasing firearms, still caught in the crossfire between state and federal law.

The only path forward is complete removal from the CSA, coupled with a federal framework that respects state markets while establishing basic national standards. This would resolve the gun rights issue overnight – no more choosing between your Second Amendment rights and your medicine or recreational preference.

Would I love to see Congress completely overhaul the CSA? Absolutely. The entire scheduling system is based on outdated science and political theater rather than actual harm reduction principles. But let’s be realistic – that’s about as likely as finding bipartisan agreement on… well, anything these days.

Instead, we need to focus on what’s achievable: complete cannabis descheduling. This isn’t just about guns and ganja – it’s about fixing a broken system that’s created countless legal paradoxes and unnecessary criminal penalties. It’s about acknowledging that the emperor has no clothes, that cannabis prohibition has failed, and that it’s time to move forward with a sensible federal policy.

Until Congress acts, we’ll continue to see these legal battles play out in courts across the country, watching judges try to reconcile constitutional rights with outdated federal drug laws. It’s a waste of judicial resources, taxpayer money, and most importantly, it’s a waste of Americans’ time and freedom.

The solution is clear. The only question is: how many more Americans need to get caught in this legal crossfire before Congress finally does its job?

 

Inspiration:

https://www.marijuanamoment.net/federal-court-reaffirms-that-ban-

on-gun-ownership-for-people-who-occasionally-use-marijuana-is-unconstitutional/

https://www.marijuanamoment.net/nra-says-federal-ban-on-

marijuana-amid-state-level-legalization-has-created-confusing-legal-landscape-for-gun-owners/

 

CANNABIS AND GUN RIGHTS, READ ON…

CANNABIS USERS GUNS RIGHT

WHY CAN’T MMJ PATIENTS OWN GUNS, AGAIN? READ THIS!



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

MLK Day 2025: Cannabis and Civil Rights

Published

on

By


It’s MLK Day once again.

I’ve been writing an MLK Day post on this blog for eight consecutive years. The theme of my posts is that cannabis is a civil rights issue, and that Dr. King would have advocated for ending prohibition based on that fact.

Each year, I have demonstrated with facts (upon facts upon facts) that the War on Drugs continues in insidious ways. In, 2023, which is the most recent year that FBI data is available, law enforcement officials made over 200,000 arrests for marijuana-related convictions. Those 200,000 arrests constitute roughly 25% of all drug-related arrests.

Sadly, arrests of black people constituted 29% of all drug arrests in 2023, although only 13.6% of Americans are black.

Heading into MLK Day weekend, President Biden announced that he is commuting the sentences of nearly 2,500 people convicted of non-violent drug offenses. The focus was predominantly on individuals “who received lengthy sentences based on discredited distinctions between crack and powder cocaine…”, as opposed to cannabis-related crimes. According to the Last Prisoner Project, “the total number of those incarcerated for cannabis who received commutations is not knows, but nine LPP constituents will be free.”

For all that Biden promised as to cannabis, it’s the least we could have asked. Under the new Trump administration, attention will quickly return to the frustrating marijuana rescheduling process. If cannabis ends up on Schedule III, criminal penalties for traffickers may soften, but make no mistake: possessing and distributing cannabis will still be a federal crime.

At the state level, where most arrest occur, progress has slowed in the last few years. Out here where I live in Oregon, with our 800 cannabis stores, it’s astonishing to think of 200,000 annual cannabis arrests– most for simple possession, no less.

There is a lot of work to do. Here are a short list of organizations if you’d like to get involved:

For prior posts in this series:



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

No Smoking, No Vaping – What’s the Safest Way to Consume Cannabis Based on Your Genetics and Science?

Published

on

By


safest way to consume cannabis

The Safest Way To Consume Cannabis For Health, According To Science and Genetics

 

Marijuana legalization continues to help thousands of people.

Most especially those who need marijuana to treat conditions in a safer, more natural, and more cost-effective manner compared to pricey, addictive, and dangerous pharmaceutical medications. That said, not all weed is made the same: depending on where you get your weed, some of it may be grown using pesticides, which can be bad for your health especially when smoked. So yes, it does matter what kind of weed you’re smoking and where you got it from.

In addition, not all methods of consumption are also the same. Many consumers, particularly extremely health-conscious individuals, prefer not to smoke weed. Smoking weed that’s been grown with pesticides can also be dangerous for one’s health. It’s especially not recommended if you are immunocompromised,

 

That’s why a growing number of consumers prefer to explore the variety of other consumption methods available these days, such as edibles, tinctures, beverages, and cannabis oil to name a few.

Now, the results of a new study have just been published, suggesting that cannabis oil extracts may be the safest way to consume weed. Researchers studied MCT oils that contained high concentrations of CBD with some THC.

 

“Several studies have found damage to various chromosomal associated with cannabinoid use,” said the researchers. “Considering numerous studies demonstrating the genotoxicity of cannabis, it is noteworthy that many of these investigations have focused on individuals who consume cannabis through smoking or in cigarette form, normally rich in THC,” they said.

 

The researchers specifically found that extracts of cannabis sativa don’t exhibit genotoxic or mutagenic potential in doses that are commonly used by patients to manage anxiety, pain, epilepsy, and other conditions. “Although the current literature on cannabis sativa extract remains inconsistent, most evidence suggests that these extracts are safe for cells and DNA under both acute and chronic experimental conditions, even at high doses, in studies involving both male and female animals,” wrote the researchers.

 

Some consumers were alarmed recently when studies, albeit weak in nature, were published, which suggested that cannabis smoke had the potential to be genotoxic. That said, it still isn’t recommended for individuals who may be immunocompromised but there is no strong evidence that cannabis can indeed cause genetic mutations.

 

Since oral consumption of cannabis oil bypasses the respiratory system and allows patients a more accurate way to dose, it’s become the preferred method of consumption for many medical cannabis patients. Whether you’re young or old, the safety profile of cannabis oil has been proven; this is especially true if you wish to avoid respiratory harm.

 

The Role Of Quality Cannabis In Health

 

As cannabis consumers, there are many ways you can ensure that you’re medicating with clean, safe cannabis that’s free from dangerous contaminants. Pesticides aren’t the only contaminants to be aware of; street cannabis sold by dealers can be laced with toxic additives and even fatal ingredients, such as in the notorious case of the tainted THC vapes containing Vitamin E acetate. Other undesirable ingredients to take note of include residual solvents and heavy metals.

 

It’s also your role as a consumer to do research about the quality of cannabis you buy. Of course, it makes sense to only buy from licensed cannabis dispensaries since they can easily supply laboratory-tested cannabis products. From edibles to oils, flowers and more, licensed dispensaries can provide products that have a Certificate of Analysis or COA, which can either be printed on the packaging itself, accessed online, or via a QR code. A cannabis product with a COA can give you peace of mind that the product meets stringent testing and quality standards.

 

In addition, you can also seek out certified organic cannabis products. Of course, the fact that cannabis still isn’t federally legal means that there is nothing similar to a USDA Organic certification for weed, though some manufacturers make it easier for consumers these days to know if they are buying organic or not. For example, if you live in California, you can look for Clean Green Certified or OCal (weed that has been grown in standard that are comparable to organic).

 

 

Conclusion


If you are older or have pre-existing medical conditions, the best way to medicate with marijuana is by taking cannabis oil orally. It’s also extremely versatile, since it can be used to treat an array of conditions ranging from nausea to chronic pain, headaches, muscle pain, and so much more. While it may have reduced bioavailability compared to smoking, cannabis oil extracts do provide fairly quick relief for several conditions.

 

Smoking weed in any form, whether by flower, vape oil, or concentrates, should be avoided or limited altogether. There are also other potential consumption methods that are safer and more suitable for the immunocompromised, such as sprays, edibles, and topicals.

 

It also helps to carefully consider the type of cannabinoids you are consuming. For patients that need to medicate during the daytime, CBD or high-CBD products are always preferred. One must be careful with THC especially if you are older, operate machinery, or have no previous experience with psychoactive drugs. Always start with the lowest dose possible, and work your way to a higher dose slowly.

 

SAFEST WAY TO USE WEED, READ ON…

SAFEST WAY TO USE WEED

AMERICANS DON’T KNOW THE SAFEST WAYS TO USE WEED!



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2021 The Art of MaryJane Media