Surrender Your Guns, Police Tell Hawaiian Medical Marijuana Patients

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

1) As long as no information about the condition for which marijuana is prescribed is given, there is not necessarily a violation.

2) Well, implied consent works for alcohol roadblocks. Different, I know. But still.

3) Maybe. Or else it will go to court. Which, in Hawaii, would be interesting.

Im pretty sure that if my wife, as a licensed nurse in the state of Texas, breached trust by mentioning a patients viagra, or acyclovir (a herpes drug), she would risk losing her license as well as a personal lawsuit.

HIPPA protects any part of the medical record. If the conflict is that its state licensing....then the problem is the state government interjecting themselves into medical care. But rights are rights.

The whole medical marijuana deal is going to be a big mess to work out. Its ridiculous, to be honest. The biggest winner in the illegality of marijuana? Private prisons, and states that are deep into contracts with occupancy penalties.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DBCowboy

There are, as far as I know, no state or federal laws which would allow them to do so.

The justification for this law is that pot impairs judgment.

Wouldn't it be a de facto ruling if we accept this current law?

a reply to: tigertatzen


Heh, it is truly an insidious plan and is no doubt exactly what they expect us to do. It is good to see people waking up to this reality though (on this and many other issues). In my opinion, prohibition has everything to do with pharma-lobbyists providing politicians with lucrative benefits and outright bribes. There are also a certain number of people who were duped by all of the propaganda (at least that has gotten a little better) and blatant lies that demonized a valid and efficacious medication.

The statements classifying it as highly addictive should be subject to the same skepticism as their decision to not classify alcohol/tobacco as highly addictive/dangerous/no medical use. Of course alcohol/tobacco aren't even scheduled substances, though I suspect this is also due to lobbyists bribing politicians.

I hate to see erosion of civil rights, as well as natural rights to include making an informed decision about the safest and most effective healthcare options individuals have. By arbitrarily and maliciously restricting certain options (especially medical MJ), they are preventing doctors from properly informing patients of *all* treatment options for certain conditions. The law is forcing them to immediately jump into something that is more dangerous, actually addictive and lends to a high risk of overdoses (non-medically speaking, even alcohol/tobacco have a higher risk of overdose than this particular substance).

a reply to: DBCowboy


Heh, well stress causes impaired judgment as well. I wonder if we can ban the government since they cause so much stress by creating entirely arbitrary and uninformed laws.

This goes so far outside the purpose for government that I barely recognize the founder's intent as it applies to our current reality.

a reply to: DBCowboy

However, since federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)) makes it a felony for an “unlawful user of … any controlled substance” to “possess … any firearm,” and since marijuana is classified as a Schedule I controlled substance, it is a felony for a user of marijuana to possess a firearm.

fedsoc.org...

Booze is not a controlled substance.

a reply to: Phage


Except the Constitution, which clearly states "shall not be infringed."

It seems to me that restricting firearms for any reason is infringing.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

But then, you don't need a special ID to get a Viagra prescription.

HIPAA seems to get fuzzy in some places when it comes to law enforcement and what information can be used by whom. But you could be right.

a reply to: JBurns

Yeah. You're not alone. I happen to disagree on that. I don't think everyone who wants a gun should be able to own one.

But in any case, until the law goes away, it's the law.

Just from standpoint of inalienable rights, freedom and simple language of Constitution (not pretzelized lawyerspeak) someone will not use or exercise their rights, someone else (majority) will use and exercise their rights and then there's minority that will abuse those rights.

Seems we're spending to much, time, money and headache making stupid laws to control abusers at the expense of those using and exercising their rights.

There exist hundreds if not thousands of laws to cover assault, use of deadly weapon under the influence, murder, rape, robbery and a myriad of offences in between.

IMHO this Police Chief is finding persons guilty before innocent without due process or judgement of peers.

Unconstutional in my view but no surprise the 9th ruled against gun rights.

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
I wish you lot were consistent with your outrage.

Laws to screw us little people are enacted all the time and you guys are happy about it, but as soon as they come for your guns it's the end of the world.

This is why we are being screwed over, wake up to it already.

This isn't actually about guns, though. It's about attacking people in order to deter the use of a medicinal plant that has been proven to work more effectively on chronic illnesses than any of the poison Big Pharma peddles, without dangerous side effects that make even more medication necessary and without the risk of chemical addiction...and about punishing those who do use it.

They can't force people to stop using an herb in lieu of chemicals, so they'll simply use their favorite tactic to cause trouble for them: hit em in the unalienable rights. And they know going after the guns will cause maximum uproar. They already know how many people out there are using medical Cannabis, because they're registered. As are gun owners. I'm betting the correlation between those two demographics is pretty high.

People who truly think this has anything to do with guns are simply taking the bait. This is about the drug industry and Cannabis stealing all the regular customers away from the poisons they've been pushing on the unwitting masses for so long. It's spiteful, childish retaliation.

To be perfectly honest it feels like a hit piece on both guns and cannabis, it seems like a slide of hand from the government and has successfully found a way to attack both at the same time.

Hahahahahahahaha

*breaths*

Hahahahahahahahah

Wait, Hawaii is pretty liberal right?

Yeah, no one is coming after our guns.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DBCowboy
It is a federal law which is the reason for the confiscation.

It might be notable that the police chief is brand new to the position. None of the chiefs of the other counties (islands) have issued such letters, yet.

A good point. Honolulu is a different world from Hawaii county. I can't imagine anyone would be interested in trying to mount a serious, full-on gun confiscation in Puna.

Also of interest is the fate of former HPD chief Kealoha.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Since you can also fire that ammo -that you're not allowed to have- using a vice and a hammer, maybe vices and hammers need to be turned in too...

Firing a bullet without the barrel is nearly harmless. It’s not going to have enough velocity to do any damage. Nice try though.

a reply to: VariableConstant

Also of interest is the fate of former HPD chief Kealoha.

Yes, and...? Do tell!! Seriously...You can't say somethin' like that, and not finish. You, meanie.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

It seems Honolulu Police Chief Susan Ballard, has been able to pull-off a task heretofore unseen in modern times.
She and her staff, were seemingly able to correlate a federal list of whatever, with a state list of whatever.

Renewing a health card, an expired passport, or even trying to get stupid permit for a simple renovation: we are treated by town, city, other officials, like we are some kind of alien, with no previous human history. We need to have 5-year tax-audits, call character witnesses, prove and reprove over and over again that we exist. Proof of address; birth certificate; are you sure you are who you say you are?

Yet the Honey-Loo-Blues were able to do this on a straw-dress budget?

Somebody is messing with us...

a reply to: VariableConstant

The Kealoha story is worthy of a mini-series.

a reply to: seagull

Heh.

Police chief and his prosecutor wife conspire with high ranking police officers to frame said wife's uncle. Framing includes faked video of uncle stealing a mailbox. FBI investigation leads to resignation of police chief. Resignation deal includes $250k "bonus" payment to chief, to be refunded if he is convicted. Cheif's attorneys say "Please let us off the case because he can't pay us." Judge says ok.

To be continued.

But, on topic, new Honolulu police chief says "Dope smokers, give us your guns!"

a reply to: Blaine91555

What they're getting marijuana users for isn't necessarily owning guns while having a marijuana card, it's for lying on the Form 4473 (the ATF form filed to transfer a gun from a FFL holder to whoever). There's a specific section regarding illegal drug use, and since marijuana is still federally illegal, it's a fairly major crime to file a 4473 denying drug use while being in possession.

In California if you have a medical MJ card your ineligible for a gun permit,federal law,and can't work on a govt facility

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

How does my possession of a card prove my use of marijuana? Yes, its implied. Does that implication mean that I am ceding my rights without due process?

.

very good questions.
if and hopefully when this bull# gets challenged in court those questions will be addressed.