Ore. high court rules medical pot users can carry concealed guns

Marijuana is not liberal or conservative; it just is. It's just a plant, nothing more. Of course this is from my libertarian point of view.

 

It's always fun at times like these to watch people who support gun rights but oppose drug rights try to reconcile the fact that they're only for small government when they're getting their way.

For my part, good on the ruling - our firearms and vices are none of the government's business.

 

the issue would be that if you fired your weapon then you needed a drug test, Pot is traced in the system for weeks, so unless you admitted to smoking that day then it would be hard to track. i can not see how this is allowed at all, if someone has an Rx for "medical" weed then i would assume that it is needed daily, meaning that he or she would always be stoned. now thats not good. im am not an advocate of carrying weapons or legalizing pot so maybe im biased

 

There are lots of reasons for prescribing marijuana. Cataracts, anxiety, cancer, depression, chronic pain, paranoia, dementia, etc.

Imagine if someone had a prescription for it for anxiety and shot someone because they weren't stoned!

 

Well here in ca more then half the population must have so type of disease or "pain". They can legalize all this yet still threaten my rights to even own a gun. Its bullshit. How bout they stop taxing my damn ammunition and tax pot, ca would be richer then anything.

 

God I love Florida!!!

 

I don't support medical marijuana, period. It's a liberal concept that is coming to law. Concealed carry is very conservative, and seeing the two cross is going to create quite an entertaining debate. Not here to bitch, just point out how the two extremes crossed paths here.

 

Okay. Just wondering. I think it's entertaining to see the worlds intertwine. Makes people remember that not everything is red/blue, black/white, us/them, etc.

 

FWIW, 'liberals' wouldnt have to make laws legalizing 'medical' marijuana, if conservatives actually believed in the small government, personal freedoms that they preach about. The problem is that they want 'freedoms' when it comes to guns and shit they want, but when it comes to stuff they dont benefit from (drugs) they are against those same personal freedoms.

If the government has no right to tell you wether or not you can carry a gun, why should they have a right to tell you what you can/cant put into your body?

Legalizing marijuana should be something conservatives support, as it is a matter of personal liberty. Gay marriage for that matter too. Think about it- telling someone they're free to live however they see fit (so long as they dont hurt anyone else/infringe any one else's rights) is as conservative as it gets!

 

But then they couldn't stick their nose in other people's business, or tell them how to live! Which is even more conservative! Oh the dilemma!

And for God's sake, what about the children!?!?!

 

I like tacos.

 

X2

I think drugs are bad, mmkay. I'm opposed to drugs as a substance.

But I support the government ending drug prohibition, because all it does is drive the trade underground thereby decreasing supply and increasing price, along with all the fun law enforcement and crime that goes with it.

Let people have guns and drugs if they want.

If anything, this bus driver should simply be allowed a permit. If desired, Oregon should legislate that he can have a CC permit and medical marijuana, but can't do both at the same time. Smoke OR carry. (And by extension, drink alcohol OR carry.) Apply the same rule to driving.

Easy, enforceable, and allows the individual his rights without endangering those around him.

 

In theory that's true, until 2nd Amendmenters start crying foul about how The Gubment is attacking this person's rights to CARRY A GUN OH NO!

For what it's worth, I pretty much agree with you. I just think there are people who will clamor at the possible infringement of a person's gun rights by the government if it were the case. (the OP perhaps? )

 

There is debate among people over concealed carry in bars right now (I don't see how this is any different) but most of the opposition I've found is from an extreme minority.

Most gun owners I've met simply want the ability to responsibly carry and own guns without their privacy or rights tread upon. I've never met somebody that is sane who also feels strongly about being allowed to concealed carry while intoxicated.

For example, here in Alabama, the pistol permit (what they call the CC permit here) forbids carrying while intoxicated and furthermore forbids issuing permits to "habitual drunkards."

Despite this being Ala-freekin-bama, nobody has complained yet AFAIK.

 

Dont get me wrong- I dont identify with liberals in this country, or their party. But I just think that conservatives have lost their way. You can't be selectively conservative. You can't draw the line of personal rights at the things you like, then outlaw the rest.

Im just sayin the words 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' were meant to set the standard for life in America as one in which people were free to do what they want, how they want as long as they dont infringe on anyone else's life, liberty or pursuit of happiness.

I dont see how smoking a little weed, or owning a gun, or marrying someone of the same sex is hurting anyone else, so who is the government to stop it?

 

Then you need to be libertarian, sir! Because I agree, and so does this guy: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/ (Despite that he'll never be elected, ever.)

 

Well here's my take on it....they could get high and run out of food and try to hold up a restaurant for munchies BUT.........they forgot to put bullets in the gun or forgot to put the gun in the holster or just forgot what they left the house for and nothing bad happens.

 

I guess you could call me a libertarian in principle, but there were things that the actual Libertarian party preached that I didnt really agree with.

For example, Im not necessarily a proponent of legalizing ALL drugs, immediately. As much as I am about living and lettin live, there are limits. There is emprical evidence that shows that drug addicts commit a disproportionate number of crimes, usually to support their habit.

Now pot smokers arent really part of this group, but those who use hard-core drugs are. And now were talking about your liberty and pursuit of happiness infringing on mine...

 

I understand. I bear in mind, when considering these issues, that nobody is going to get a policy like "legalize all drugs" through quickly at all. However, by voting for such candidates, there stands a chance to pave the way there.

And Ron Paul, among others, support the idea of legalizing drugs, and treating addiction as an addiction (like alcoholics) instead of a criminal offense. With the amount of money we'd save on enforcement and gain through taxes, we could easily help people who need it rather than throwing them in jail, and have money leftover to boot!

 

Oh, furthermore, you're assuming more people would do drugs if they were legal.

Perhaps this is true, but I would look at smoking cigarettes, another legal habit, which has been generally abandoned not because of legality but because of health issues.

Therefore, I'd posit that the number of addicted hard drug users would probably not increase particularly significantly. Sure, some people would do drugs that wouldn't otherwise, but I think people that are willing to take the health risks of doing cocaine, etc are not afraid to acquire the drugs illegally.

Therefore, I don't think keeping them illegal keeps people from using them. Therefore, if we decriminalize it, we can save money AND use it to help these people that are going to be addicted either way.