SDA, HB2612, and Medical Marijuana

[tRidiot]

I even hear so called experts on American Family Radio talking about how it causes psychosis and a host of other horrible things. It’s pure lies. I have never heard of one single person getting
Any of those things.

No, it's not. There is definitive documented evidence of psychiatric issues with various aspects of marijuana use. I'm not saying it is worse or better than alcohol, prescription meds or other drugs, but the truth is, we don't have enough research to truly claim it is safe - nor do we have any real regulation of the products on the market. It's all smoke and mirrors.

I'm not advocating it or blasting it, I'm just saying, it's not the panacea some would have you believe. NOTHING is.

 

[CharlieWH2O]

It’s because they still view MM as an illegal substance. They want to discourage MM users by threatening them to surrender their constitutional rights. The hypocrisy is that other prescription pain killers (opioids) and psychological balancing meds (anti-depressants, etc) are not included as well. The stance should be the same for all medications AND ALCOHOL. Make it illegal for to use or carry during consumption just like the current laws for alcohol.

Who the F*** is the government to say that someone who is prescribed OXY, or self medicated with Jim Beam should be able to carry, but someone who uses MM isn’t. The biased hypocrisy is sickening.

From OK SDA Handbook:

TITLE 21 § 1289.9 CARRYING WEAPONS UNDER INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL

It shall be unlawful for any person to carry or use shotguns, rifles or pistols in any circumstances while under the influence of beer, intoxicating liquors or any hallucinogenic, or any unlawful or unprescribed drug, and it shall be unlawful for any person to carry or use shotguns, rifles or pistols when under the influence of any drug prescribed by a licensed physician if the after effects of such consumption affect mental, emotional or physical processes to a degree that would result in abnormal behavior. Any person convicted of a violation of the provisions of this section shall be punished as provided in Section 1289.15 of this title.

Note there is no presumed level of intoxication for carrying a firearm as there is for driving a vehicle. The issue with MM is the law was not written to exclude Federal Law and OSBI has to adhere. There is a bill pending (SB959) to correct that so contact your Senator, Representative and Governor if you want it passed.

 

[RedHawk357Mag]

While I don't know for sure what stance OSBI had on concealed carry I wonder if they still maintain the original stance if they were against it in the beginning? For all the shortcomings of the mandatory training I can't deny that SOME people definitely got some remedial training in safe firearm practice and some realized there's definitely more to self defense than buying a gun and a box of ammo and never shooting either. Now whether that information made it past 90 days of class conclusion may also be questionable.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[sanjuro893]

While I don't know for sure what stance OSBI had on concealed carry I wonder if they still maintain the original stance if they were against it in the beginning? For all the shortcomings of the mandatory training I can't deny that SOME people definitely got some remedial training in safe firearm practice and some realized there's definitely more to self defense than buying a gun and a box of ammo and never shooting either. Now whether that information made it past 90 days of class conclusion may also be questionable.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

OSBI has always lobbied against CCW in every phase. They were against it in the 90's, against the passage of open carry and against constitutional carry.

 

[tRidiot]

As were a number of our law enforcement agencies and higher-echelon officials.

Screw them.

 

[Glock 40]

4473 - 11e is the problem from the lawyers I have spoken with. While getting a federal crime pinned on you probably isn't likely you sure as heck don't want to deal with that. Every lawyer I know has said you can CCW or Green card not both and be legal in Feds eyes. To further that you don't want any drugs that aren't legal in your possession and possession of a handgun. The way its been explained to me the two are exclusive. Carrying isn't your concern so much as owning a gun and having an illegal drug.

 

[RETOKSQUID]

Not exactly true. This is not prescribed by, nor use monitored by, nor reported or controlled by a physician or pharmacy. This truly is recreational marijuana in practice, make no mistake about it - they've just required a physician to evaluate someone and attest that they have a condition which MAY benefit from use of marijuana. There is ZERO further contact with a medical professional required beyond that, and it isn't dispensed by any licensed professional in the medical field. The shell game about having a physician sign off on it was nothing more than smoke and mirrors to get it through the ballot box.

Just a clarification.

Very true.

 

[mightymouse]

4473 - 11e is the problem from the lawyers I have spoken with. While getting a federal crime pinned on you probably isn't likely you sure as heck don't want to deal with that. Every lawyer I know has said you can CCW or Green card not both and be legal in Feds eyes. To further that you don't want any drugs that aren't legal in your possession and possession of a handgun. The way its been explained to me the two are exclusive. Carrying isn't your concern so much as owning a gun and having an illegal drug.
View attachment 138682

All true. If you own guns and have a green card, you are walking a fine line.

 

[kwaynem]

A lot of guys at work ask me about this and I just tell them it’s still federally regulated

 

[sedona]

OSBI has always lobbied against CCW in every phase. They were against it in the 90's, against the passage of open carry and against constitutional carry.

I was happy when Gov. Stitt signed constitutional carry even when the osbi complained they would loose out on 4 or 5 million dollars per year.We shouldn't have had to pay for it in the first place or at least not more than 25 dollars.