“Medical” Marijuana Card? “No guns for you!”
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has once again made an . . . interesting ruling. This time it concerns gun ownership.
Predictably, the 9th Circuit came down on the side of restricting gun ownership. But this case has a few twists. And I’ll be damned if I don’t think the 9th Circuit might actually have gotten this one correct, legally speaking.
Hey – stopped clocks are right twice daily, remember?
The case in question involves both marijuana and firearms. Some states issue “medical” marijuana cards to people authorized to purchase the drug for “medicinal” purposes. Yes, the quotes here are intentional. Anyone with half a brain knows that a substantial percentage of such applications for the “medical” use of marijuana are bogus.
However, while marijuana has been “decriminalized” by some states, its use remains unlawful under Federal law. And Federal law currently bans the possession of firearms by those who use illegal drugs.
Regarding the case in question: it seems a lady in Nevada having such a “medical” marijuana card applied to purchase a firearm. The dealer refused to sell her one, citing BATFE guidance that they could assume – based on the her having been issued a “medical” marijuana card – that she was a user of marijuana and thus lawfully could not purchase a firearm.
The lady took the matter to Federal court. To her chagrin, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the BATFE’s interpretation of Federal law. They ruled that she could indeed be presumed to be a user of marijuana, which is still illegal under Federal law – and was therefore not legally entitled to purchase or possess a firearm.
So: in 9 western states, having a “medical” marijuana card now also means, “No gun for you!” Presumably the same is also true for those having prescriptions and other certifications allowing “medical” marijuana use within one of those 9 states.
I personally love the irony here. Many if not most favoring wholesale legalization of marijuana are politically leftward-leaning. Well, in any of the 9 western states 9th Circuit states where “medical” use of marijuana has now been made legal, this ruling appears to say that if someone gets some form of permit allowing “medical” use of marijuana . . . they’ve just effectively declared themselves to be a drug user – and can no longer can legally purchase or possess a firearm.
Law of unintended consequences? You betcha. That law is always in effect.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA… OH, sweet Schadenfreude. Let’s also remember that NONE of the mass shooters in past years were neither NRA Members or registered Republicans.
So Oxycodone is o.k but weed is a no/go?
When obtained with a valid prescription, use of oxycodone as prescribed is not unlawful. Therefore, unless someone is obtaining multiple prescriptions and/or otherwise breaking the law in obtaining oxycodone, this ruling would not appear to apply.
Per published accounts, the basis for the 9th Circuit’s ruling seems to be unlawful drug use – not the use of a legally-prescribed drug. And regardless of whatever state/local law may say, Federal law still places marijuana in the “use is unlawful/cannot prescribe” category (Schedule I controlled substance).
I have lung cancer and use oxycodone occasionally for my cough. I also bought a gun just a couple of weeks ago and my check went through without a hitch.
Hospital employee Mrs. J H tells me in our area a Marijuana pill is often prescribed to combat nausea from chemo treatment. Surely must contain THC as it makes some patients a bit goofy. Now why didn’t I think of that as an excuse when people thought the same of me?
Vets battling PTSD and prescribed medications from the VA are prohibited, in some jurisdictions, from holding concealed carry permits….although I’m not certain about restrictions on long guns.
The reason some vets are prohibited from possessing firearms is because they have been declared incompetent to handle their affairs.
I have not heard of PTSD as an excuse to deny a firearm to a vet.
kevin
Formally declared mentally incompetent by a court, or “deemed so” by a bureaucrat at the VA? The appointment of a financial conservator is not the same as a formal declaration of mental incompetency by a court of law.
Being declared mentally incompetent by a court of law passes the 14th Amendment’s requirement for “due process of law” before a right under the US Constitution can be limited. A determination made by some unknown drone in an office, without benefit of hearing, does not – regardless of whatever “spin” the VA tries to put on this type of bureaucratic overreach.
The VA has their “Secret Disciplinary Committee” where, if they decide, they can strip you of your 1at, 2nd and 4th Amendment rights.
As someone who just completed a Mental health rotation for Nursing school in California, If you are held in an inpatient MH facility for danger to self or others, this state will make it so firearms ownership is illegal for 5 years.
I had a PT who was bipolar and I had to fill the forms out with the PT. There is a process to appeal this, and the clerks were fast to get the paperwork started for that, but as we can all assume with this state somehow the shit will bottleneck and the PT will still have to follow the 5 year decision.
Hondo,
I hear you and I tend to agree with you but, I work in Mental Health for the VA and some of these guys should not have firearms. I am pro 2nd Ammendment but there has to be some common sense to go along with it.
Kevin
It used to be about drinking beer and shooting guns.
Not anymore.
Lets get high and put a few rounds downrange.
Curious as to Obummer’s take on this.
Ask him when he’s rolling a joint.
My guess is that he’s all for it.
Where he grew up in Hawaii and Chicago, they never met a gun they didn’t want to confiscate.
This is actually something I hadn’t thought about, and I had considered the medical MJ issue in full (or so I thought.) But then, the people I am desperately fighting to have access to this life-saving “drug” are not generally people who will be purchasing a firearm, like my severely autistic son. His “other” disability makes him part of a huge group in this country, 1 in 300 people has a seizure disorder which cannot be controlled by any “medication” currently available, or by any other (surgical, etc.) means.
People who do not legitimately need MJ should NOT be allowed to get those cards. THAT is where our focus should be. And in making the Feds realize that it is unconscionable to prevent those who truly need it, from getting it. But then, the Feds “drug system” is so badly broken that it doesn’t matter that they destroy lives daily, deliberately.
Change the federal drug registry to exclude MJ as an illegal drug, and the problem goes away.
Are you really advocating the legal sale of marijuana under the same (or more liberal) terms than alcohol? Because that’s what would result from removing marijuana completely from Federal controlled substance schedules.
Moving it to Schedule 2 (where narcotic painkillers with recognized medical use, such as morphine and codeine, now are found) would accomplish the same thing. That would allow marijuana to be prescribed by physicians for recognized therapeutic purposes. Of course, it would also require the AMA/medical community to convince the FDA to recognize that marijuana has valid therapeutic uses.
You might want to clarify your comment above. It appears inconsistent, as you seem to want marijuana to be restricted to “those who need it” but also appear to advocate removing all Federal controls regarding its sale and use.
Hondo,
Why not make it as legal as alcohol?
Legitimately NEED MJ? bullshyt! no one NEEDS TO SMOKE! and the leftist , socialist liberals have all been lined up to stop people from smoking cigarettes, but here they are promoting the hell out of smoking MJ! All more BULLSHYT!!
The Ninth Circuit strikes again…. and libtard heads explode!
Legalize it. Pot smokers have done far less damage to the world than booze drinkers. I know, I have been both on occasion.
Legalizing pot will only further the Leftist agenda in fundamentally transforming America.
There are many long term side effects for pot, not to mention the obvious short term effects.
Pot is effectively a population control drug. People who use it are capital Leftist. There is no going back to America 1.0 after such legalizing Marijuana.
such nonsense propaganda.
I live in Colorado. I was ambivalent to the issue . I cannot leave one parking lot in town where young beggars have signs asking for money. Then around 3 pm they all wander to the pot store and buy their weed. Then they all hang out where ever and toke up. Crime is up and there are places people will not go. There are issues with it. Now the big thing is hash oil. people have been displaced from apartments due to explosions. There seems to be unintended consequences no one thought through.
Good reason to stay the hell away from Colorado, which USED TO BE a beautiful state.
Still is. Just stay out of Denver. I happen to live in Longmont, and there are no stores in the city limits. The county (Boulder) allows them, so 10 feet outside the city limits is where they pop up. Compared to Boulder, Longmont is pretty conservative. Hence our nickname Longtucky.
Horseshyt! Ever met some pot head that has been on the stuff for years and try to hold a conversation with him? Their brain doesn’t function anymore, they can’t have a continuous conversation, they hesitate, stop talking, stare off into space…..this shyt is good for you? RIGHT!
Back in the day, it’s easy to remember being stupified to the point accomplishing anything on a given day was just unnecessary. The worst thing people had to worry about was leaving a pan of brownies within reach and expecting any to be left the next morning.
“…shall not be infringed…”
Taking that in isolation, one could conclude you support firearms ownership by convicted felons and those who have been declared mentally incompetent. I’m guessing you don’t.
No Constitutional right is absolute and unlimited. Even fundamental rights like religion (human sacrifice can be banned), speech (disclosure of classified information can be prohibited), and firearms ownership (not if formally declared mentally incompetent) are subject to reasonable restrictions if the government can demonstrate a compelling need to do so. The key questions are, “What constitutes ‘reasonable’, and what is sufficient justification to prove a ‘compelling need’?”
You couldn’t conclude that at all Hondo. Convicted felons have be CONVICTED. I can’t see where is woman was convicted of anything.
My only complaint with the whole thing is that we are being nickel and dimed to death. It’s the death of a thousand cuts, the final death being the right of ANY kind of gun ownership at all. If I thought the people slapping the rules on us gave a damn about our rights, I wouldn’t have made any comment at all.
The problem with this decision is two fold. First, the plaintiff was ruled to not have standing in some parts of the case because she had not renewed her medical marijuana card registration so she had not suffered any immediate harm. The problem with that is that the dealer refused to sell her a firearm because they knew at one point in time she had a registration card. This effectively barred the plaintiff from getting near a court on some of her claims. She could neither seek relief because she did have a card or did not have a card. The court also said she was not harmed because she did not purchase a weapon. It is the barring of the purchase that is the issue. It’s a warped set of thinking. Secondly, it is a long stretch to say that merely having a card means you are an “illegal” user of the drug in question. If you have the card, you are by definition legal to use marijuana in the state of Nevada. Given that the Feds don’t prosecute marijuana use (only distribution) it would seems that even the Feds are giving the prosecution of illegal marijuana use over to the state. But there is something else here and this is where, in my opinion, the decision goes off the track. The plaintiff had a medical marijuana card. She testified under oath that she never used the drug itself. The BATF letter on the interpretation of the laws said that the person must be a user “of an illegal drug, marijuana,….” The plaintiff was not a user. The Feds only said “she could be because she had a card.” In short, the 9th Circuit said that because she could be a user, she should be denied the right to purchase a weapon. That’s a dangerous precedent in my opinion. To put it in a manner in which many people can relate, let’s not allow driver’s licenses to those who have a history of alcoholism in their family. Or not allow recovering alcoholics to ever drive (even though they have… Read more »
well, technically, as long as the Feds have it as Schedule I it matters not what the state says – it is still illegal under Federal law. There is legally no ‘State legalization’ as long as the Federal law is on the books, there is just a state-level refusal to prosecute.
Bingo. Different, overlapping jurisdictions. And this was a Federal, not a state, case.
Your analysis above appears flawed. The opinion of the 9th Circuit panel ( https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/31/14-15700.pdf ) very clearly states on page 8 that the plaintiff obtained a Nevada “medical” marijuana card on 12 May 2011. She attempted to purchase a firearm on 4 October 2011, and was denied. She initially filed her case against the Federal government less than 2 weeks later – on 18 October 2011. Published sources indicate that Nevada “medical” marijuana cards are valid for a period of 1 year. She attempted to purchase a firearm less than 5 months after receiving her initial “medical” marijuana card. Therefore, the lady in fact had a current medical marijuana card both at the time she attempted to purchase a firearm and at the time she filed her legal claim. So the assertion you make that “she didn’t have a card” seems to be erroneous. Further, the lady also stipulated in later court documents that she has routinely renewed her “medical” marijuana card. The government did not challenge this assertion, and the 9th Circuit panel which reviewed her claims accepted this assertion (that she had routinely renewed her “medical” marijuana card) to be true. (p. 11) And indeed, the 9th Circuit further accepted as true her assertion that she “chose not to use medical marijuana for various reasons” and had obtained the card “to make a political statement”. (p. 12) So your assertion that they failed to consider the fact that she might not actually be a marijuana user seems similarly inaccurate. The “immediate injury” claim that the 9th Circuit disallowed referred to injury due to criminal prosecution. A violation of 18 USC 922(g)(3) would have required the plaintiff actually to receive a firearm – and would have subjected her to criminal prosecution as a result. Since the plaintiff neither received a firearm nor was prosecuted, dismissal of this claim of “injury” was proper – injury on that basis did not occur. Further, the 9th Circuit panel did in fact consider OTHER injury claims the plaintiff raised, as is shown by this quotation from the opinion (p.10): “Wilson does have standing,… Read more »
Sorry Hondo, but it appears that in your zeal to make some sort of statement that you miss several key points.
First. the form asks in effect “are you a user?”
She first told the dealer no and then left the question blank. The 9th said the mere possession of the card means she was a user. That is the only way the decision can be interpreted. There is no evidence to support that claim and the government never disputes that she was a user. It it never in dispute that she was not a user and yet was denied the ability to buy a firearm.
In short, her actions did not fit the law and yet the government chose to enforce a provision that is not within the law.
(Perhaps you have heard that it is Congress that makes laws?)
As for your statement “In effect, the 9th Circuit told the lady that, “Actions and decisions have consequences. If you didn’t think things through before deciding to make a ‘political statement’, tough.”” what consequences do you think should be heaped upon a person for making a legal statement in the political arena? You seem to be saying that the government has the right to punish someone for lawful political speech made in a legal time place and manner.
(Perhaps you have heard of the First Amendment?)
This is a case where the mere appearance of doing something is enough for the 9th Circuit, the government and you to believe that legal actions can result in the restrictions of rights.
No. What the 9th Circuit said is that it is reasonable for a 3rd party to conclude that possession of a current “medical” marijuana card constitutes a public declaration that the bearer uses marijuana. It further ruled that it is perfectly OK for the BATFE to so advise those with FFL of that fact. Since obtaining such credentials allowing the legal purchase of “medical” marijuana typically requires both voluntary application and medical certification that one suffers from a condition that would benefit from the use of “medical” marijuana, accepting that position (that possession of such authorization is a public self-identification as a user) seems completely reasonable to me. If someone later decides they do not wish to use marijuana, then all they need to do to cancel that declaration is to return the card or allow the card to expire. This individual did not allow her “medical” marijuana card to expire; they kept it current, ostensibly in order to to make a “political statement”. Someone with such a card could indeed claim they do not use marijuana in spite of the fact that they have authorization to do so. However, a reasonable person (such as a firearms dealer who wants to keep their license) viewing the situation could come to a different conclusion – e.g., that the individual has self-declared themselves to be user of marijuana – and refuse sale under these circumstances. That is precisely what happened; the 9th Circuit has said that is perfectly in accordance with the law. If the plaintiff here truly doesn’t have any need for a “medical marijuana” card, they can turn it in – and there will be no reason for them to be denied should they afterwards apply to purchase a firearm. However, that would mean they would have to take their chances, legally, should they decide to “light up” in the future. In short: the 9th Circuit told this lady, “You can’t have it both ways. If you have a current ‘medical’ marijuana card, it is completely reasonable for someone to conclude you in fact use marijuana. Using marijuana makes you… Read more »
Hondo needs to chill
We are not Borg…
I’ve always supported medical marijuana, but only in suppository form. Just the thought of hippies complaining about headaches to get their latest fix of butt-pills makes me LOL.
I’m suddenly picturing 90% of the population of Bisbee walking like penguins as their “medication” gets absorbed.
TAH commenters: 2nd amendment!! 2nd amendment!! Don’t take my guns. Don’t tread on me! No American will be denied the right to own guns in my country! Not on my watch!
Wait..
Not so fast hippie. Your drug of choice is different than my drug of choice, so lets infringe the hell out of your right. *Swigs beer*
I’d like to point out that I’m a very pro 2nd amendment, former Marine that owns about *REDACTED* Rifles, *REDACTED* Shotguns and *REDACTED* Handguns and politically I’m to the right of Regan. Oh, and occasionally I enjoy a bit of the mary jane. 😉
I’m recalling an old Zonker Harris quote, after he’d been busted for pot and bailed out: “It may be right, it may be wrong, but it is DEFINITELY illegal!”.
Not exactly. There’s this pesky little fact that marijuana use remains illegal under Federal law, irrespective of whatever state laws may say to the contrary. Because of that, use of marijuana constitutes a specific ban against the purchase of a firearm under 18 USC 922(c)(3).
I believe the Federal law that formerly banned consumption of alcohol went away in 1933.
Take it up with Congress. They’re the ones who make the laws.
“If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.”
– Thomas Jefferson
A law is not unjust merely because someone disagrees with it. Someone, somewhere, disagrees with every law.
I’d be very interested in hearing your discussion of why the Federal prohibition concerning the use of marijuana is “unjust”. Please be more specific than “I have a right to use it”. One can make that same argument about extracting “eye-for-eye” revenge on a murderer, but that is still virtually always against the law.
Besides, I’m not sure I’d use that particular quote to bolster your argument. Jefferson at times espoused public principles that were quite inconsistent with his own behavior. In fact, he showed a great ability to tolerate unjust laws that worked to his benefit.
Hondo, I respect you quite a bit, but comparing killing another human being (Extra Judiciously I assume) to smoking some pot? Weak.
The government has no right to regulate what I put in my body. There are laws to deal with any crimes I commit against others while ingesting a drug or because of my drug use (drunk driving laws, theft laws if I steal to get my drugs)
But this isn’t about the drug laws in this country. Its about watching the people I admire on this site, just shrug their shoulders at someone’s constitutional rights taken away on suspicion. Self confessed or not.
A certain amount of people will abuse substances just like a certain amount of people will abuse firearms.
Oh, yes, TJ was an imperfect person, shocker. Doesn’t take away from the wisdom of his words.
The crimes are indeed not anywhere near the same in severity – but your argument (“The government shouldn’t tell me not to do that; doing that is my right”) can be used equally well to justify either.
Besides, I don’t recall any “right to toke” in the Constitution. But the Constitution does grant Congress explicit authority to regulate interstate commerce. A ban on legal possession and sale of something may be an extreme form of “regulation” – but it’s within the scope of Congress’ Constitutional authority to do exactly that should they choose. Regarding marijuana (and a number of other drugs), they have.
State law to the contrary, marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law. Ignore that if you like. Just be prepared for the consequences should you get caught.
It can’t be used to justify either. One doesn’t hurt anyone but myself the other example takes the life of another human.
I never took you for a Federal Government bootlicker.
Actually, it can. And people have tried to use that justification for murder before (revenge/”he deserved to die”). It didn’t work. No right is absolute. While the state cannot tell you what to believe, it can – and often does – regulate behavior. And in this case, the Constitution grants Congress the expressed authority to do regulate the behavior in question (possession/sale/use of illicit drugs) through the explicitly granted power to regulate commerce. It may be an extreme example, but an outright ban on trade or possession of a particular commodity falls within the scope of “regulate”. Congress has done that with respect to marijuana. Regarding firearms: that right too is not without limit. The courts have ruled that reasonable regulation on firearms ownership is permissible – only an outright ban is not. While you or I may not like it, banning certain persons from owning firearms (felons, drug abusers, the insane or mentally incompetent) is an accepted point of US law. I do have certain reservations concerning this decision. Those mostly concern the fact that the 9th Circuit seems to have used IMO too lax of a standard in determining whether the Federal government can issue the guidance it did. I think the BATFE guidance would have survived even strict scrutiny, but the 9th Circuit panel appears to have used only intermediate scrutiny. But arguing that the 9th Circuit “got it wrong”, legally, is a no go. They appear to have correctly applied current Federal law to the case in question. If someone is a user of illegal drugs, they are not allowed under current Federal law to purchase a firearm. The 9th Circuit has ruled – IMO correctly – that it is reasonable to infer that someone who has voluntarily applied for and possesses a current “medical” marijuana card from a state or locality has self-identified as being a user of marijuana and can reasonably be assumed to be a user of marijuana. This makes them ineligible to purchase a firearm under Federal law – and means a FFL holder cannot lawfully sell them a firearm. If someone… Read more »
I also can’t see where she was charged, much less convicted of any crime. So, in short, her constitutional rights have be usurped without due process biased on the “assumption” that she committed a crime.
You might want to read the opinion. The 9th Circuit specifically addressed that point in its opinion. They did not rule she had committed any crime, and in fact accepted (for argument) her assertion that she did NOT use marijuana even in spite of her having a current “medical” marijuana card.
However, the court did rule that her being a user of marijuana would be a reasonable inference by a third party due to the fact that she possessed a “medical” marijuana card; that the BATFE was correct in advising FFL holders that possession of such an authorization to use “medical” marijuana could be considered when an individual applied to purchase a firearm; and that it was reasonable for a FFL holder to conclude that an individual possessing a “medical” marijuana was a user of the drug, and thus refuse the sale.
The situation is little different IMO than someone coming in to a gun shop claiming to be “Jean Luc Picard”, acting highly nervous and jumpy, and presenting an obviously bogus ID supporting that claimed identity when attempting to purchase a firearm. Under such circumstances, the FFL holder could reasonably suspect that the individual was lying about their identity, and deny the sale – and should do exactly that.
You just said an “obviously Bogus ID”. That would be what you would call a crime. No suspicion. A provable crime.
FFL holders don’t try crimes. They look at documents and sell weapons. State and Federal courts try crimes.
In any case, under Federal law using a false ID in and of itself might not be a crime – there doesn’t seem to be a general Federal law against using falsified documents except in conjunction with certain specified acts (if there is, I haven’t been able to find it in the US Code). I don’t think firearms purchases are one of those specified acts; I’d have to check, and do not have time at present to do so (already running late).
Falsifying the ATF 4473 form, however, would be a Federal crime – a felony, to be precise. As might well be sale of the firearm if the seller suspected or knew the ID was bogus.
I hate pot, I hate cigarettes, how are we going to get the young people from starting, when half the population is stoned, oh yeah, I hate hippies also.
Decriminalization of marijuana is inevitable and long overdue.
And there is really no basis to believe marijuana use would make you a danger to society and thus preclude you from owning a firearm.
If this reaches SCoTUS I suspect to will be overturned.
If you truly believe in gun rights it should be disconcerting that something as capriciously enforced as marijuana criminalization can be used to deny the constitutional right to bear arms. Especially since the criminalization of marijuana itself had no real justification beyond the preservation of profits for influential industries at the time.
If cigarettes or alcohol was similarly criminalized would you think it justified that the government could strip your ownership rights if you were a smoker or drank socially on occasion?
Marijuana is an herb, has medicinal properties, and should be legalized and placed under the auspices of the FDA. It should be by prescription only, since there is some evidence that psychosis can be one of its side effects, mainly for adolescents.
I’ve come to the conclusion that humans are incapable of true acceptance or even true tolerance. The only thing we can offer people who are ‘different’ from “us” is distance — enough space so they can do their own thing while we try to forget they exist.
Love the new handle, by the way.
Note that above, I said that IMO the 9th Circuit got this one correct – legally speaking. I did not discuss the propriety of making marijuana illegal one way or another.
Legally speaking, it is absolutely within Congress’ Constitutional authority to make possession or sale of marijuana (or alcohol or tobacco) unlawful, or to declare them Schedule I drugs with no medicinal value. Whether it should do so is a completely different subject.
Do not bet on this decision being overturned on review. “Selective enforcement” of the law is rarely a successful defense.
After a recent post, it won’t come as a shock to anyone (especially API and Mr. Bill) that I smoked quite a bit of weed in RVN. As a T C, I was responsible for tank and crew, including a small box of five morphine syrettes (however you spell it!) kept by most T C’s under the communication system to be needed as required. In spite of getting ripped fairly frequently at night, the thought of using any of those pain relievers NEVER entered my mind. Smoking devil weed was one thing, the other was waaaaayy out of my league. Not until all T C’s were asked to check for their little boxes, and many of us found ours missing, did I realize there was a serious drug problem on hand.
Fat forward to civilian life where I pissed away some time in the drug world, including downers such as pills and even codeine filled cough syrup. Sure I could blame it on starting with weed in RVN, but that would ring shallow. It was ME and MY poor choice of friends that I chose which led me down the wrong path for a while. After making a clean break from so-called friends did I begin to grow up. Parting company with that social life was the key.
As for those once enjoyable days of my life, it’s history to be smiled on looking back at how one’s personal choices can influence their life.
So here’s my question as related otherwise to gun registration. On an application to buy a weapon is there not a segment that asks if the applicant IS or EVER HAS BEEN under the care of a shrink? Anyone rated with PTSD will tell you part of the program includes once monthly GROUP, at least b-annual visits to the V A shrink, in addition to monthly visits with a therapist. Beyond what is or is not accomplished by these scheduled visits, it’s still a label attached to a situation. Can anyone say with certainty whether this is a NO on weapon purchase?
Those were very different days. I kinda remember parts of the 70’s. People today don’t use drugs like we did. We ate shit because it was purple, no explanation was required. There was a day long ago that if a peanut butter enema would have got me high, I probably would have stuck it up my ass.
Back then they didn’t take your car or your house if you had pot. I could tell stories about entire units fucked up and sending rounds down range. There once was…well, nevermind I think you know what I mean.
In those days 100 microdot fit into a large McDonalds straw. (so I have heard.) Blotter and 4 way window pain were everywhere. Raking seeds out of the pot on an album cover with a comb was just part of the daily routine.
Remember those polyester shirts? Seeds would pop in the joint sand the amber sparks would instantly create little holes in your shirt. Oceanside and JacksonNAM had head shops about every other door.
Different times my friend. People today are clueless about what it was really like. You and I remember a time when we “unfriended” someone by knocking their teeth out. I have a few missing from people that “socially blocked me”.
We live in a softer, gentler, more pussyfied world. Not everyone got high back in the day, but too many deny ever being so fucked up they watched tracers spell out their name.
Even through Beirut Marines were getting fucked up like that. Its just the way it was. Honestly bro, the more sober people become the more violent they seem to be.
Not me of course, just a calm and peaceful as the day is long these days. I try not to do thing to excess now a days. I used to jerk off in the shower so much…when it rained I got a hardon. Rained all days yesterday…nuttin.
Semper Fi bro.
Good history lesson in a nut shell my friend. That includes purple haze, blue micro dot, Calif. orange barrels (AKA Calif sunshine), white crosses, placidyls, little four ounce bottles (that was so-called “family” size) Robitussin A C (loaded with codeine), your window panes, Mr. Natural blotter acid, quaaludes, the whole shitload. Everything that was not consumed by needle injection had my name on it. Just finally came crashing down to where my life needed (and got) a change of environment in order to move on and grow up. Never watched tracers spell out anything, but did enjoy their trajectory at night. As for seeds, the most sought after weed was African black ganja. Soft and moist, but never any seeds which we all wanted. Remember hanging the pieces of plastic that covered dry cleaned clothes when picked up at the dry cleaners…..hanging a piece at the top center of a door way (cased opening to be more accurate) and lighting it? On and on the beautiful colors dripped on to a newspaper on the floor. Calif. sunshine in particular was the key to that bit of nonsense. At least it made sense at the time while listening to Pink Floyd. Who can forget YOU knocking on the door (Cheech & Chong) to be shouted YOU weren’t there? How the “good ‘ol days” are remembered, especially when you think about how many of them were absolutely wasted. Have to agree with you about the more recreational drug use became a thing of the past, time was replaced with more and more violence. We had our time, and it was just a chapter of our life to reminisce over with a smile. Once Watts burned, life took a different direction. Wouldn’t give up those memories for anything, in spite of knowing that some jumped a little too deep into that world and never came out. Janis and Jimmy set the pace, some chose to follow in their foot steps. Beyond that, the dreams of those days are still pleasant. So few to discuss those days are left any more. Worse yet, mentioning… Read more »
Youth is wasted on the young. There came a day (Feb 17, 1979) when I had to sober up and grow up as well. (At least act like it anyway)
That day is well documented in my Record Book. Got rid of the drugs and the drinking but kept the strippers. (Hey, I made an honest effort)
Watts burned? Those were the days when fire hoses were used for crowd control first and fires second.
Steppenwolf said it best bro, “I see a lot a people walkin around with tombstones in their eyes.”
Ah, so you two spent your misspent yute getting high instead of getting laid.
That explains why neither of you could ever get it up back then.
You promised to never talk about that moment. I was under a lot of stress, you put something in my food, and it was my first time on video.
Thankfully I have other videos, you may or may not be in some of them.
Riding a Wave is not as easy as it sounds.
That ‘something’ was vitamins. Always the best. Not my fault if you were falling down drunk, spending more time on the floor than upright. You had choices. You thought it was more fun to sniff barstools than sit on them.
You’re the reason I finally just gave up and went for cats. And you never said a word about my cooking, just pigged it down and left.
I was sad.
It’s several decades past time to end Prohibition II entirely. All drugs should be sold OTC, no prescription required, except for antibiotics, to reduce development of resistant diseases.
Label everything with suggested dosage for age, size, and malady to be treated, or recreational use.
Then let evolution run its course.
Philosophically, I somewhat agree.
Then I remember that US taxpayers are forced by law to pay for much of the extra medical treatment required because of drug abuse (especially for those who “tune in, turn on, and drop out – including alcoholics on skid row – and who get ALL of their medical care from emergency rooms). So, yeah: maybe the Congress does have a legitimate reason to stick its nose in this one. The entity who voluntarily pays for something can legitimately make the rules concerning that for which they will pay.
Exclude any medical care needed due to drug use from public funding – including allowing emergency rooms at private hospitals to refuse treatment for such individuals – and I might agree. Otherwise, you’re forcing the public to subsidize the total cost of recreational drug use. And I have a bit of a philosophical problem with that.
I have frequently thought I’d be better off going to the local horse doctor than trying to get a human doctor to do anything for me.
In the UK, if you’re feeling poorly, you go to the chemist (pharmacist) and tell him/her what your symptoms are. I think that applies to the EU, too. If it’s anything worse than the flu, they know about it and refer you to a doctor – or at least, that is how it used to be.