Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Legalized pot and gun ownership

No, we are just old bitter haters 4, that wanna keep our sixes covered.

Jorge, here's my problem with your continued class-warfare insults. I've seen you, time and again, express admiration for certain authors, hunters, and historic characters. MANY of them were heavy abusers of alcohol. Your position on this is that it's completely fine to be a besotted drunk and go through life about half-pickled because that has "class" but a person regardless of position in life that might happen to use pot recreationally and still be productive is somehow "seedy" and "low class"?

No offense, my friend, but get off your f'kin' high horse. A substance abuser, whether it's marijuana on the river bank or martinis in a country club, is a weak-willed person who is deserving of no admiration at all.

Isn't that some crazy chit? you're man enough to take a bullet for the country, but not man enough to have a cold beer if you live through it?

If you were truly worried about covering your six, you'd be wanting to piss test before every shift and make sure no one on that crew went on a drunk bender within the last 72 or isn't taking some miracle pill from the medical crew.

I break the law occasionally myself. Hard not to do when there are so many stupid and clearly unconstitutional ones on the books. I certainly think it's stupid to send someone to fight and maybe die for his country and yet tell him he's not old enough to drink.

On this; complete agreement.

While I can appreciate all the micro-feuding going on here, I'll just cut to the chase. Putting somebody in jail over ingesting a plant, be it mj or even a poppy is stupid and wrong. Putting somebody in jail because they hurt somebody, whether it was because they are just evil or because they were under the influence of some plant or drink, is right and good. The latter doesn't employ nearly as many folks though, so the war on deeruugs keeps on truckin'. I hope President Trump falls on the right side of this.

Marijuana grown at home for private consumption still falls under the umbrella of the Commerce Clause.

See, Gonzales v. Raich


Even respondents acknowledge the existence of an illicit market in marijuana; indeed, Raich has personally participated in that market, and Monson expresses a willingness to do so in the future. More concretely, one concern prompting inclusion of wheat grown for home consumption in the 1938 Act was that rising market prices could draw such wheat into the interstate market, resulting in lower market prices. Wickard, 317 U.S., at 128. The parallel concern making it appropriate to include marijuana grown for home consumption in the CSA is the likelihood that the high demand in the interstate market will draw such marijuana into that market. While the diversion of homegrown wheat tended to frustrate the federal interest in stabilizing prices by regulating the volume of commercial transactions in the interstate market, the diversion of homegrown marijuana tends to frustrate the federal interest in eliminating commercial transactions in the interstate market in their entirety. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity.

Appreciate that. I knew there was some oddball case involving a grain, but could not recall it. I believe that it is still technically valid, though heavily criticized up to - but not quite - overturning it.

Agreed.

We've went down the road of "proactive policing"...trying to guess what is going to "make" somebody do bad things because we like blaming objects rather than people and because it gets lots of politicians votes because they can support the rackets while at the same time taking money under the table from the other side, whether that be mob or cartel. When you go down that road though, the next step is to blame tools such as guns, the same way you blame a stinking plant instead of the person using it to [bleep] themselves up to the point that they hurt somebody else.

When you go down the road of telling people what they can or can't do with their own body, then you get this huge bureaucracy that eventually even tells you you can't have the best sinus medication because you might go Walter White and make some other stuff that they say is bad for you.

Can't we just have some simple laws that everybody can understand and punish the bad guys when they actually transgress? I guess not...

If you were truly worried about covering your six, you'd be wanting to piss test before every shift and make sure no one on that crew went on a drunk bender within the last 72 or isn't taking some miracle pill from the medical crew. [/quote]

Agree, that's why i have a pasture full of un-used equipment, got tired of the employment games, and yes, random drug screens abound, I followed testing procedures to the letter of the law, but knew full well and good if someone tested positive for anything after an accident, they'd put my a$$ in a sling.

Agree, that's why i have a pasture full of un-used equipment, got tired of the employment games, and yes, random drug screens abound, I followed testing procedures to the letter of the law, but knew full well and good if someone tested positive for anything after an accident, they'd put my a$$ in a sling.
[/quote]

That makes sense.

Now, considering the impacts of alcohol, would you then not be consistent in calling for alcohol to be made illegal as you have been advocating for pot to remain so? Or, would it not make more sense (for the myriad reasons discussed) to regulate pot and tax it, just as we do alcohol and many, many other things?

We build guns where I work so we're constantly using power equipment/ machinery. Mills, lathes, grinders, buffers, drill press, yet NO DRUG TESTING. I've never asked why but can tell you I know some very talented pistolsmiths who smoke pot regularly.

From a liability standpoint, that's just stupid on the employer's part. One accident investigation, and the resulting insurance suit and premium increases will be draconian.

That makes sense.

Now, considering the impacts of alcohol, would you then not be consistent in calling for alcohol to be made illegal as you have been advocating for pot to remain so? Or, would it not make more sense (for the myriad reasons discussed) to regulate pot and tax it, just as we do alcohol and many, many other things? [/quote]

Don't know, would have to give that some heavy thought, I do know beer may lead to a shot of whiskey, but pot to mainlining tar heroin to the jugular is a much worse avenue, in other words, from the bottom to the top of alcohol, is much less hazardous than that of the weakest to the strongest dope.

The BEST auto body shop painter I've ever seen is a zig-zag 1.5 pot rolling long haired hippie fu-ker, that sombitch is brilliant in a paint booth, fumes anyone?

Don't know, would have to give that some heavy thought, I do know beer may lead to a shot of whiskey, but pot to mainlining tar heroin to the jugular is a much worse avenue, in other words, from the bottom to the top of alcohol, is much less hazardous than that of the weakest to the strongest dope. [/quote]

The "gateway drug" myth is exactly that; a myth. Hell, if were not then alcohol and tobacco both ought to be made illegal immediately as they are almost ALWAYS the first two drugs that people try before moving on to anything else.

Yep, they used to test regularly but stopped a couple years back. Like I said, I never asked why but it does seem stupid/risky to me.

Would have to study that too, could pour over offender criminal arrest records and see what they were charged with first early in their criminal careers.