“Untrustworthy Stoners Can’t have Guns!” implies Biden Admin with latest Cannabis Blunder
Ah yes, the Biden Administration has been continually “dropping the ball” when it comes to their cannabis related policies. From the fact that there has been no significant movement on their campaign promises and rather taking a more staunch approach against cannabis users especially due to the “letting go of staffers” who admitted to smoking cannabis in the past. This despite them saying that it would have “no influence” in their decision-making.
Then Russia decided to use Britney Griner as a negotiating chip to release Russian arms dealer, which the US is willing to do. While I believe that what Russia is doing to Griner is excessive, the hypocrisy of the United States cannot be left out of the equation.
The United States still believe that cannabis is a “bad drug” and people who use it are criminals, yet, when Griner is locked in a Russian Prison, they are willing to trade actual criminals to save this one person while having people serving life sentences in the US for the exact same crime.
While all of this has received its fair share of criticism, the latest blunder by the Biden Admin is just another slap in the face of the average US citizen.
Now, the DOJ of the Biden Admin once again chimed in and meddled with a lawsuit that would have granted federal protections for medical marijuana patients/users and their second amendment right to bear arms.
Before we go any further, let’s first take a look at the lawsuit in question.
Prohibiting Cannabis Users from Access to Guns Violate Their Second Amendment
The lawsuit filed in Florida was filed by Nikki Fried who runs the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Fried’s department are responsible for giving out conceal carry permits and also regulates some parts of Florida’s medical marijuana programs. According to the suit, by prohibiting all cannabis consumers the right to conceal carry or to have guns at all is a direct violation of their second amendment rights. Additionally, the suit claims that the federal policy violates the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment, which prohibits the federal government from interfering with state medical marijuana programs.
The DOJ filed a motion to “dismiss” the case citing,
“[T]here is no constitutional problem with separating guns and drugs.” United States v. Yancey, 621 F.3d 681, 687 (7th Cir. 2010). Congress separated guns and drugs in the Gun Control Act of 1968 by prohibiting “unlawful users” of controlled substances from possessing firearms and prohibiting others from transferring firearms to unlawful drug users. 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), (g)(3). Plaintiffs claim that Congress cannot constitutionally prohibit medical marijuana users from possessing firearms. Plaintiffs further claim that the prohibition violates the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment, a rider to the bill appropriating funds to the Department of Justice (DOJ), that restricts DOJ from using appropriated funds to prevent Florida and other states from implementing medical marijuana laws. Plaintiffs are wrong on both counts. As a threshold matter, however, Plaintiffs lack standing for most of their claims. Only Plaintiffs Vera Cooper and Nicole Hansell claim that their Second Amendment right to possess firearms has been injured, and no Plaintiff claims that they have been injured by DOJ spending in violation of the rider. The Court can thus dismiss multiple plaintiffs and multiple claims for lack of standing at the outset. SOURCE
In essence, the DOJ said that the lawsuit does not hold any merit. And “legally” they may have a point, but their reasoning is what is pissing off a lot of people. The reason is because they say that cannabis users can’t be trusted and are in fact – CRIMINAL!
That’s right, if you’re using cannabis to treat your chemo or seizure disorders, Joe Biden’s administration believes you are a criminal!
…the laws challenged here impose no burden on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. These laws merely prevent drug users who commit federal crimes by unlawfully possessing drugs from possessing and receiving firearms, and only for so long as they are actively engaged in that criminal activity. Such restrictions on unlawful drug users are “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Id. at 2126. Two closely related traditions are analogous: the tradition of restricting the firearms rights of those who commit crimes and therefore are not “law-abiding citizens,” id. at 2156, and the tradition of disarming those whose behavior or status would render their firearms possession a danger to themselves or the community. Possession of illegal drugs, including marijuana, is a federal crime. – DOJ
That’s right, even if it’s legal in your state, the Federal government considers you a criminal. Meaning, that even if they are “sympathetic” to Griner, they believe she is a criminal and technically should be jailed for breaking international law. But of course, they are hypocrites and will use Griner to show how “with the people” they are while simultaneously claiming that she’s “untrustworthy” and a “criminal deviant”.
Florida’s government recognizes that marijuana use impairs judgment, cognition, and physical coordination, including “the ability to think, judge, and reason,” Florida Board of Medicine, Medical Marijuana Consent Form, available at https://flboardofmedicine.gov/forms/medicalmarijuana-consent-form.pdf (last visited Aug. 3, 2021), 3 precisely the types of impairments that make it dangerous for a person to possess firearms – DOJ
While this is legal “truth”, there’s another substance easily sold at any convenience store that renders a person’s ability to “think, judge and reason”, impairs cognition and physical coordination – but has no restrictions on the user’s ability to own a gun. I’m talking about Alcohol of course.
Alcohol that has been linked to over 40% of all violent crimes according to the FBI. Yet, since it’s legal on a federal level, there is no issue with selling someone who smells like stale whiskey a gun and bullets. But if you take cannabis to alleviate your pain – you’re “untrustworthy” according to the DOJ and ultimately Biden.
The rest of the document, which was linked above, explains how they justify this reasoning.
Biden is trying to disarm the population…
Of course, it’s not “Biden” the person but his administration trying to do this. They haven’t been shy about it either. After every gun-related massacre, there are talks about scaling back regulations, banning semi-automatic rifles, etc.
Yet their reasoning when it comes to disarming cannabis users are what is drawing criticism, especially in a country where more than 70% of the nation is in favor of full federal legalization. But, as I have said on numerous occasions, those in power utilizes cannabis prohibition as a weapon.
A Marijuana Moment Article also pointed out a few interesting points from the memo;
Disarming unlawful drug users “is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” DOJ said. “Two related historical traditions are analogous: the tradition of excluding those who engage in criminal activity from the right to bear arms, and the tradition of disarming those whose status or behavior would make it dangerous for them to possess firearms.”
They also said, “the right to bear arms was tied to the concept of a virtuous citizenry.” Which is the same reasoning they have used in the past to deport legal citizens and remove green cards from people who live in legal cannabis states.
What’s even more telling about “who they are” are the historic references for disarming citizens one of which is sure to make any gun-carrying-freedom-loving American boil with rage.
“In England and in America from the colonial era through the 19th century, governments regularly disarmed a variety of groups deemed dangerous. England disarmed Catholics in the 17th and 18th centuries…Many American colonies forbade providing Indians with firearms….During the American Revolution, several states passed laws providing for the confiscation of weapons owned by persons refusing to swear an oath of allegiance to the state or the United States…States also have disarmed the mentally ill and panhandlers.”
Yep, you didn’t read wrong. They basically are saying, “The people who we fought for our independence disarmed people!” You mean, the empire that over taxed their populations. Is this why the Biden admin is hiring 87,000 new IRS agents? To be more like the English Empire?
Then, they cited “racism” as another good reason to disarm people. “Colonies forbade Native Americans” to have guns…I wonder why? Could it be so they could brutally massacre them and steal their land and leave them indefensible against their oppressors? Finally, if you’re poor you shouldn’t have a gun according to Biden Admin.
Here’s more gold from their POS Memo.
“It is therefore dangerous to trust regular marijuana users to exercise sound judgment while intoxicated, a fact tragically borne out by the frequency with which marijuana users drive while impaired and suffer fatal collisions,” it said.
“Marijuana users with firearms pose a danger comparable to, if not greater than, other groups that have historically been disarmed. For example, ‘like the mentally ill,’ drug users ‘are more likely to have difficulty exercising self-control, making it dangerous for them to possess deadly firearms.’ In addition, the impairments caused by marijuana use are analogous to those caused by ‘intoxicat[ion]’ with alcohol, which has historically justified firearms restrictions. In fact, greater justification exists for firearms restrictions on marijuana users because, unlike alcohol, marijuana is an illegal drug. Such restrictions are therefore also analogous to firearms restrictions on those engaged in criminal activity.”
So let’s break this down for you. The Biden DOJ believes;
It’s dangerous to trust marijuana users
Marijuana users pose more danger than the “mentally ill”
Marijuana users cannot exercise self control
Marijuana impairs you like alcohol does
Marijuana users are immoral
Why Disarm a Population
Let’s start by the fact that I don’t own a gun. However, I am sane enough to understand why the second amendment exists. Historically, every time a government successfully disarmed their population, chaos ensued. This is because the second amendment isn’t really about protecting you from other citizens as much as it is protecting the people from an overreaching government.
Hitler did a similar approach to the Jews prior to exterminating them and while Politifact is desperately trying to make it that “gun regulation would have done nothing to stop the Germans”, the fact of the matter is that these legislations removed the Jewish people’s right to defend themselves.
On Nov. 11, 1938, the Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons was issued. Under it, Jews living under the Third Reich were forbidden to own or possess any form of weapons, including truncheons, knives, firearms and ammunition.
But the Nazis had already been raiding Jewish homes by then, and the Anti-Defamation League, an organization founded to fight anti-Semitism, explained in 2013 that “the small number of personal firearms in the hands of the small number of Germany’s Jews (about 214,000) remaining in Germany in 1938 could in no way have stopped the totalitarian power of the Nazi German state.” – Politifact
Of course it wouldn’t have “stopped” the Germans from easily and systematically exterminate the Jewish population in Germany, but it would have made the efforts significantly more difficult. It would have been bloody, it would have garnered international intention, it would have made some Germans think twice about fully supporting the Nazis.
To claim that it would have had “no impact” is empirically false.
Gun rights is about your right to defend yourself, even if it’s a loosing battle. The United States disarmed the Native Americans and then went on a “purge” of the land. The fact of the matter is that if you disarm a population, you remove their right to defend themselves. You remove their right to die standing on their feet fighting what they believe in, as opposed to being trained to gas chambers or concentration camps.
The United States Government has been utilizing drug laws to remove cannabis users’ constitutional right to defend themselves. You can argue the law all you want, but remember – there was a time when it was “legal” to own a slave.
Legality doesn’t mean right.
Does this mean you should vote for Trump in the coming election – NO!
It means that you need to get out of the binary dogma of US politics. It’s time to break the 2-Party System which is essentially the same monster with two faces.
Pay attention folks…the pandemic created unique conditions and if you’re not careful…things can go south rather quickly. Fortunately, Americans are stubborn bastards who will stand and fight oppressors when push comes to shove…domestic or foreign.
I’m not calling for violence, I’m calling for a culling of the political class that has been waging a war on your freedoms for decades. It’s time to remove career politicians, those who accept payments from Pharma and other major industries…It’s time to evolve as a society.
The government is clear about what they think about you – the immoral stoner who’s a danger to themselves and others.
Today in a lawsuit we’re watching, the federal government argued that "medical marijuana users do not possess a constitutional right to possess firearms" because they "are actively engaged in criminal activity" and thus "are not ‘law-abiding’ citizens": storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco… from firearmpolicy
MORE ON THE 2ND AMENDMENT AND WEED, READ ON…
WHY CAN’T CANNABIS USERS OWN GUNS, AGAIN? READ THIS!