Guns, Marijuana, and the Supreme Court

The US Supreme Court said it will hear a case next year on whether people who regularly smoke marijuana can legally own guns. Instantly, I had two thoughts. First: since it’s not illegal for people who drink alcohol regularly to own a gun, why should marijuana users be singled out? Second: what part of the Second Amendment that states “shall not be infringed” is so hard to understand? Owing something, no matter what it is (unless we’re talking nuclear-bomb level type stuff), should not be illegal. Using something for nefarious reasons, should be.

The case is being brought up by Trump administration attorneys seeking to revisit a case against a Texas man who acknowledged being a regular pot user, while also owning a gun stored at his home. A previous ban that kept people who use illegal drugs from owning a gun had previously been struck down by a lower court as a blanket restriction. Government attorneys argue such a ban is a justifiable restriction

The original felony charge, which was tossed out, did come with a caveat. The lower court also stated the ban could still be used against people accused of being high and armed at the same time. In my opinion, that’s a more logical argument. High and armed... is not the same as high and owning.

Were such a ban to exist, a broadly written law could put millions of people at risk due to a technicality. At least 20% of Americans have tried pot, which includes medicinal treatment in states that allow it. Federal laws, however, still put marijuana in the same category as heroin and other more dangerous drugs.

The Justice Department argues regular drug users pose a serious public safety risk. Note the terms “drug users” and “serious”. Hence, I did some research and extensively scanned through three research papers. Yes, there are plenty of incidents involving shootings while someone had marijuana in their system. However, most of the perps in the examples given, had at least one other drug in their system. The list included prescription drugs with depression known as a possible side effect.

People aren’t robots running on computer chips that send out the same data using the same input. We all have our own set of reactions and side effects from the usage of drugs, prescription or otherwise. Implying that marijuana usage ensures violence is different than stating violence sometimes results from marijuana usage. Only a minuscule percentage of marijuana users will ever shoot someone.

Consider that up to 10% of deadly vehicle accidents are due to medical incidents involving the driver. Nearly everyone drives. That seems a far more likely scenario to fall victim to. For lawmakers, and possibly SCOTUS, to make a blanket statement alleging public safety, while denying a specific group of persons who have committed no violent crime, their right to self-defense, is morally wrong. Whether it be a pot smoker owning a gun, or a driver with an unknown medical condition, legislation usually does far more to deny rights than guarantee safety.

Source used: Associated Press