I agree but I think it comes down to an enormous cost. Whos gonna pay for all those tests and extra personnel to handle that?
The health dept already has the staff. They come in now for WIC, STD checks, and other free services. Us tax payers are the ones on the hook for paying, I would like to see some of our money go to ending some of the handouts. I see my son's friends now that can't keep a job, but they will not give up pot to better themselves. I think we would pay for the test with the checks that did not get handed out after they fail.
Seems like a waste of money to me. Also, why do we need to make life any harder for people that are already struggling?
Yep, I agree actually. It's a catch 22 sorta thing.
I could apply for and pay my $100 and get a card. And a prescription. And decide to never fill it so I’ve never used or possessed marijuana. Thus I can answer all SDA and 4473 questions truthfully.
I’d be curious how a rescission of SDA permits based solely on the issuance of med MJ cards would hold up in (state) court. Particularly given the above plausible hypothetical.
What are the 30 other state currently doing on this? It's not a new issue.
Maybe @Dave70968 will know something?To be blunt genuinely dunno 
I don't have an answer. As far as SDA (or equivalent), I'd have to research each state's SDA law. Oklahoma's actually doesn't have anything about a user of drugs, just someone who has required inpatient treatment for substance abuse. I do know that Hawai'i has been comparing it's MJ rolls to its firearm owner rolls (see why registration is bad, kids?), and paying those firearms owners a visit to collect their guns. My understanding is that they're doing it based on the federal marijuana prohibition making those people prohibited persons, though I don't know if the "prohibited" persons is based in a state-law or federal-law level definition of "prohibited person" (i.e. they're users of illegal drugs because it's illegal at the federal level, but I don't know if HI has a state-level law against users of illegal drugs possessing firearms, or if HI is relying on the federal law prohibiting illegal drug users from possessing firearms). If that sounds convoluted as all hell, well, that's because it is.
As to other states, I really have no idea; Hawai'i is the only one that has really made the news, and I think that's because they were actually going out and confiscating. Going looking at all of the other states would be an exhaustively time-consuming endeavour.
As to other states, I really have no idea; Hawai'i is the only one that has really made the news, and I think that's because they were actually going out and confiscating. Going looking at all of the other states would be an exhaustively time-consuming endeavour.
Yes, that occurred to me, and yes, that's one of the problems with Hawai'i's actions.
As to revocation of an SDA permit, I could find no legal basis to do so. I can see an illegal possession of a firearm charge based on federal law if you actually exercise the permit, and I could see revocation of the permit if you are convicted of a drug crime, but I can find absolutely nothing making simply holding both cards incompatible at any level.
I wouldn't want to have to try to make that argument in court, though.
Similar threads
