2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: 2ahavvaii on November 28, 2017, 03:46:07 PM
-
How did the police find out who are and aren't legal marijuana users? Unless they sent out a request for info to the medical providers for registered users, they woudn't know who are current gunowners with marijuana cards unless they tried to register and got denied.
How is the surrender of firearms "voluntary"? Whether or not you bring them down to the station yourself or the cops kick your door in with a warrant, it's a mandatory confiscation. Just another example of how law abiding citizens trying to do things the right and legal way get shafted. Great start by our new chief! /sarcasm
-------------------------------------
The Honolulu Police Department has told legal marijuana users who own guns that they must turn in their weapons within 30 days.
In a letter to about 30 medical marijuana card holders on Oahu, the police said “you have 30 days upon receipt of this letter to voluntarily surrender your firearms.”
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/11/28/breaking-news/honolulu-police-tell-legal-marijuana-users-to-turn-in-their-firearms/
-
I guess that if you own firearms you waive rights under HIPAA
-
They have always made you sign the paper saying you are not under the influence of an illegal substance, and you are prohibited from it. It is there in the law and also federal law. Do I think it's right, NO. Only recourse now is for MM holders to sue, sadly, I don't think it's winnable, until the nationally legalize it.
-
They are picking the low hanging fruit in anticipation of the many bills that will come forth next year. IMHO
-
Good thing all or guns are registered..........
-
They have always made you sign the paper saying you are not under the influence of an illegal substance, and you are prohibited from it. It is there in the law and also federal law. Do I think it's right, NO. Only recourse now is for MM holders to sue, sadly, I don't think it's winnable, until the nationally legalize it.
well medical marijuana legal in hawaii, but not at the federal level so I see what you're saying. They're now taking the extra step of going after current gunowners instead of just preventing them from acquiring more firearms at the permitting stage.
Are cops even allowed to use people's medical records in this way? Not the perfect example, but it would be like going through the medical files and seeing who the top people are in alcohol abuse counseling, then staking out their house or bar they like to frequent. I think denying people from acquiring new firearms may have had reasonable justification, but this is overstepping their bounds. Giving the medical providers a list of all registered firearms owners and demanding to know which ones are in medical treatment or have a marijuana card is the same thing as going through people's medical records. It's akin to searching without a warrant.
But yeah, this pretty much kills the hopes of anyone thinking that this chief may be firearm friendly.
-
Good thing all or guns are registered..........
Yup
Registration works just as advertised.
-
this is only a "breaking news" article on staradvertiser and getting a ton of attention. Glad to say the majority of the comments are positive with most people thinking hpd is overstepping their bounds.
-
You can ask your state legislative representative to pass a law making firearm ownership allowed while taking medical marijuana. This would prevent HPD from confiscating guns. Still illegal Federally (so is marijuana anyways) and you won't be able to buy a gun, but it'll prevent confiscation.
-
So if you don’t have a registered med mj card but smoke paka illegally and have an unregistered illegal gun you don’t have to turn your gun in. But if you have a registered mj card and legally registered firearm you have to surrender your firearm to hpd.
Hmm sucks to be a law abiding rap back sucker! Hope they don’t make me register my chihuahua!
-
So if you don’t have a registered med mj card but smoke paka illegally and have an unregistered illegal gun you don’t have to turn your gun in. But if you have a registered mj card and legally registered firearm you have to surrender your firearm to hpd.
Hmm sucks to be a law abiding rap back sucker! Hope they don’t make me register my chihuahua!
Actually, if you have unregistered guns, you can get the MJ card and keep your guns. Likewise, if you only smoke illegally, you can register your guns as required, assuming you never got arrested and put in rhab.
As you said, you only get guns confiscated if you follow both laws, or if you get caught for breaking whichever law you broke. What the Cops don't know, won't hurt you.
Luckily, no one on this site does anything illegal.
-
Good thing all or guns are registered..........
....
Yeah, I feel safer already.
-
Hmm sucks to be a law abiding rap back sucker! Hope they don’t make me register my chihuahua!
that's cool to say now, until they come up with a rule that all current registered gun owners need rapback or the guns will get confiscated. They're trying to force gun insurance down everyones throats, what makes you think rapback is any different? They just started rapback less than a year ago. Making all registered owners subject to rapback requirement is the logical next step. They're slowly tightening the noose, and seeing what they can get away with. Figure the below equation out.
no medical marijuana = requirement to register new firearms
rapback = requirement to register new firearms
no medical marijuana = requirement to continue owning firearms
rapback = ____________________________
-
You can ask your state legislative representative to pass a law making firearm ownership allowed while taking medical marijuana. This would prevent HPD from confiscating guns. Still illegal Federally (so is marijuana anyways) and you won't be able to buy a gun, but it'll prevent confiscation.
So why is the HPD enforcing a Federal Law? Does HPD have jurisdiction for US Codes?
-
they could require a drug test for permit to acquire
-
So why is the HPD enforcing a Federal Law? Does HPD have jurisdiction for US Codes?
§134-7 Ownership or possession prohibited, when; penalty. (a) No person who is a fugitive from justice or is a person prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition under federal law shall own, possess, or control any firearm or ammunition therefor.
(h) Any person violating subsection (a) or (b) shall be guilty of a class C felony;
-
Honolulu only wants to enforce the laws it likes.
Illegal Immigration they'll pass on that.
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/35457736/honolulus-stance-on-illegal-immigrants-and-becoming-a-sanctuary-city
Honolulu City Councilmembers have asked the mayor and HPD not to use any county resources to help the federal government enforce immigration law.
Mayor Caldwell and Acting Police Chief Cary Okimoto say they won't, unless the feds ask for help with specific cases.
"We don't go out and enforce immigration violations.
-
Honolulu only wants to enforce the laws it likes.
Illegal Immigration they'll pass on that.
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/35457736/honolulus-stance-on-illegal-immigrants-and-becoming-a-sanctuary-city
Honolulu City Councilmembers have asked the mayor and HPD not to use any county resources to help the federal government enforce immigration law.
Mayor Caldwell and Acting Police Chief Cary Okimoto say they won't, unless the feds ask for help with specific cases.
"We don't go out and enforce immigration violations.
unless an illegal immigrant stole a mailbox
-
Sounds like AG Chin may be behind this?
I wouldnt volunteer and have to wait who knows how long in line. Tell HPD come ur house at x time and D day.
Make sure video/live stream everything.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
There are differences between the 3 issues
Guns and medical MJ - Stated in Hawaii law. Amend law to allow for MJ & guns if you want.
Immigration - No state law requiring police to turn in immigrants...or at least I think there's no law, never looked it up.
medical MJ - Stated in Hawaii law.
-
Once you sign that form giving permission for the HPD to access your medical records this gives me, as a physician, ability to report anyone. I could say you failed a drug test in the past, or that you are not mentally fit to own one. Skip due process, right taken away, property confiscated (violates 2nd amendment and 4th amendment - "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" Seizing property without due process.
This is why it is not a good idea to give police access to medical records or allow physicians ability to determine your rights without due process. Also why I would never register a firearm here. Because I'm pretty sure the police are not reimbursing these people after they confiscate them
-
Anyone know how other states are handling this since MJ is illegal on the federal level? Or is it because we have registration which leads only to confiscation.
I wrote in another thread that my friend was denied in Vegas to even shoot at the tourist range because he told them he just came from the MJ store, but didn't consume anything.
-
Anyone know how other states are handling this since MJ is illegal on the federal level? Or is it because we have registration which leads only to confiscation.
I wrote in another thread that my friend was denied in Vegas to even shoot at the tourist range because he told them he just came from the MJ store, but didn't consume anything.
I've heard from a fellow 2a'er in northern cali and he has told me its roughly the same as we have here. Seems like Hawaii just looks up to daddy california to make the laws and plays copycat.
For us here in HI though, I believe its just specifically related to the wording of "federal law" in that statute that zippz posted.
-
Does anyone know if these are folks who applied for a new permit or permit renewal this year?
Or are they actually combing the Med. Marijuana registration list and comparing it to the registered gun owner list?
If you didn't sign over your privacy rights to med records how could they get it ?
Unless the first time you apply for a permit it's a lifetime consent form.
http://www.civilbeat.org/2017/11/honolulu-police-tell-medical-marijuana-patients-to-give-up-their-guns/
"Yu also did not respond to questions about whether the letters were sent only to gun permit applicants or to people with existing permits or both."
Yu said that the HPD gained access to the state’s database of medical marijuana patients in September 2016.
“Checking the database is now part of the department’s standard background verification for all gun applicants,” Yu wrote.
-
Anyone know how other states are handling this since MJ is illegal on the federal level? Or is it because we have registration which leads only to confiscation.
I wrote in another thread that my friend was denied in Vegas to even shoot at the tourist range because he told them he just came from the MJ store, but didn't consume anything.
It survived an Oregon supreme court case. Having a MJ card in Oregon could not prohibit you. Oregon is rapidly moving toward California and Hawaii type legislation though.
-
Does anyone know if these are folks who applied for a new permit or permit renewal this year?
Or are they actually combing the Med. Marijuana registration list and comparing it to the registered gun owner list?
If you didn't sign over your privacy rights to med records how could they get it ?
Unless the first time you apply for a permit it's a lifetime consent form.
If you read the articles, they say the police have access to the patient list because it used to be managed by the dept of public safety.
The Cops are using that access to obtain the names and crosschecking them with registrations.
-
If you read the articles, they say the police have access to the patient list because it used to be managed by the dept of public safety.
The Cops are using that access to obtain the names and crosschecking them with registrations.
Please cite the source where it says they're cross-checking the patient list with registrations.
You sure not cross-checking with permit applications?
(See my updated post above and the Civil Beat article)
-
Please cite the source where it says they're cross-checking the patient list with registrations.
You sure not cross-checking with permit applications?
(See my updated post above and the Civil Beat article)
Why are you hung up on that minor detail? You know people always use firearm registration and permits interchangeably. Registrations are more complete than permits, since someone with a long gun permit may have zero long guns registered to them, as an example.
-
Why are you hung up on that minor detail? You know people always use firearm registration and permits interchangeably. Registrations are more complete than permits, since someone with a long gun permit may have hero long guns registered to them, as an example.
I'm also interested in whether or not this is a proactive or retroactive type deal. Using it to deny new permits is one thing. Going back through the database to confiscate is basically what we fear as gun owners regarding registration and why many are opposed.
-
Interesting how this is making national headlines. Even though the law has been around for a while now. I've seen the letter posted on many IG 2a accounts as well.
I guess Hawaii is the 1st state to enforce this law. Probably CA will do a "me too" enforcement next? Hence why many are choosing to go "featureless" on their rifles so they don't have to register them.
-
One thing's for sure. HRA won't fight it.
Harvey thinks it's cool they are giving gun owners 30 days to turn 'em in ( and acting like he never took a drink of alcohol in his life. Must be part of the Reefer Madness generation)
"Harvey Gerwig, head of the Hawaii Rifle Association, partially agreed, saying, “A person who is taking medicine shouldn’t be deprived of their Second Amendment rights.”
But Gerwig also said he considers the state’s medical marijuana program “a fraud on many levels.”
“You’ve got people who are using it for drug purposes, not for medicine,” he said. “In those cases I don’t think they should have a firearm.”
Gerwig credited the police department for giving people 30 days to give up their guns instead of seizing the weapons immediately. But he said it might still be hard for people to sell their firearms within that time frame, noting handguns take at least two weeks to transfer ownership."
Who would think Espero would be on our side:
State Sen. Will Espero said it doesn’t make sense to take guns away from medical marijuana patients.
“They should be going after the real hardcore criminals and bad guys versus patients who need some assistance with their health care needs,” Espero said.
http://www.civilbeat.org/2017/11/honolulu-police-tell-medical-marijuana-patients-to-give-up-their-guns/
-
I'm also interested in whether or not this is a proactive or retroactive type deal. Using it to deny new permits is one thing. Going back through the database to confiscate is basically what we fear as gun owners regarding registration and why many are opposed.
I wouldn't call it pro or retro, seems like someone behind the scenes is pulling the strings (probably Chin). There have been a lot more of these letters being sent out for mental health confiscation. My friend saw a marriage counselor 6 years ago, and has bought many guns since and renewed his permit 6x since. Only this year he got a letter saying he needs a shrink to sign off that he is mentally stable. And only after his permit was renewed.
-
I'm also interested in whether or not this is a proactive or retroactive type deal. Using it to deny new permits is one thing. Going back through the database to confiscate is basically what we fear as gun owners regarding registration and why many are opposed.
Well put Shdws
-
I wouldn't call it pro or retro, seems like someone behind the scenes is pulling the strings (probably Chin). There have been a lot more of these letters being sent out for mental health confiscation. My friend saw a marriage counselor 6 years ago, and has bought many guns since and renewed his permit 6x since. Only this year he got a letter saying he needs a shrink to sign off that he is mentally stable. And only after his permit was renewed.
The fact that HPD seems to enforce (or not enforce) laws how they see fit, or what their masters tell them to do is what is alarming.
Today, its pot. Yesterday it was mental health. Tomorrow, its using your cell phone while walking across the street. Next Tuesday, its for looking at a cop funny.
-
There's really not much difference between medical use and recreational us when it comes to the effect of pot. States who already had medical marijuana have passed/are considering legalizing recreational use based on that reasoning.
So, if Hawaii follows CO and WA, Harvey may have to revisit his opinion on recreational use being different than medical use if the illegal aspect of it is removed.
-
If we could figure out who those 30 card holders are, we could get them to video tape the HPD knocking on their door.
-
Who would think Espero would be on our side:
I know, right? I'm guessing (like in CA) hes getting briefcases of cash from the MJ industry to fight for them. Allegedly, its how some dispensaries are getting the green light ahead of other shops that apply for permits because CA left it up to the individual municipalities.
Anyway, this problem could be resolved if lawmakers amended that statute to say "state law" instead of "federal law" I believe, but I'm not a lawyer or lawmaker.
-
I'm also interested in whether or not this is a proactive or retroactive type deal. Using it to deny new permits is one thing. Going back through the database to confiscate is basically what we fear as gun owners regarding registration and why many are opposed.
(http://lonelymachines.org/red_dawn/red_dawn02.png)
-
"Yu did not respond to Civil Beat requests for an interview with Ballard. Yu also did not respond to questions about whether the letters were sent only to gun permit applicants or to people with existing permits or both."
New chief, same lack of transparency, openness, and same shadiness. Like was already said before about this so-called new chief, you can throw out the tainted koolaid, but if you're still drawing water from the alawai cesspool, it's still going to taste like sugar coated shit water.
-
"Harvey Gerwig, head of the Hawaii Rifle Association, partially agreed, saying, “A person who is taking medicine shouldn’t be deprived of their Second Amendment rights.”
But Gerwig also said he considers the state’s medical marijuana program “a fraud on many levels.”
People abuse all sorts of prescription drugs and pain killers. So his bias is hurting the people taking for legitimate reasons as well as the supposed "frauds". Nice work. If you have a prescription from a doctor (who is a professional), the assumption is that the prescription is legal, and not for nefarious purposes. At least if you have some common sense.
-
from the article:
In a letter to about 30 medical marijuana card holders on Oahu, the police said “you have 30 days upon receipt of this letter to voluntarily surrender your firearms.”
will they really come to your house and confiscate your firearms, or are they trying to trick you into surrendering them voluntarily?
also, what if you have a prescription for MJ but never actually pick anything up? are you actually using it?
what if you cancel your prescription, do you still need to surrender your firearms?
in Hawaii, they are using a MJ credit card to buy medical MJ and not cash, so there is a record of you actually buying it. what if the records show that you never actually bought any?
-
from the article:
will they really come to your house and confiscate your firearms, or are they trying to trick you into surrendering them voluntarily?
I think we all want to know this, as its definitely going to set a precedent.
Talking with friends and family in blue over the years regarding the topic of registrations being used for confiscation, and none of them want to come to your house and attempt to take your guns by force.
It wouldn't be hard though; the police just need to show up with more guys and bigger guns. Pot smokers are generally the most docile people in society and are crazy paranoid, so I highly doubt they'd put up a fight.
-
from the article:
will they really come to your house and confiscate your firearms, or are they trying to trick you into surrendering them voluntarily?
also, what if you have a prescription for MJ but never actually pick anything up? are you actually using it?
what if you cancel your prescription, do you still need to surrender your firearms?
in Hawaii, they are using a MJ credit card to buy medical MJ and not cash, so there is a record of you actually buying it. what if the records show that you never actually bought any?
I dont remember where the exact law was posted. But it basically states that they have the authority to come to the house and you need to show them where the firearms and ammunition are. If they discover any additional guns or ammunition, they will seize those too.
The "voluntary" surrender is easier for you because you don't have cops traipsing around your house and potentially finding more than whatever it is youre supposed to surrender at the station in the first place. The "voluntary" surrender also gives you the ability to sell or give away your firearms.
For other cases, I think with felony charges and TROs, they don't give you the opportunity to offload your firearms somewhere else.
---------------------------
Edit: The section talking directly about search warrant for firearms and searching for them is related to a RO. But (g) says that any disqualification complies with (3)
§134-7 Ownership or possession prohibited, when; penalty.
(a) No person who is a fugitive from justice or is a person prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition under federal law shall own, possess, or control any firearm or ammunition therefor.
§134-7 (3)
At the time of service of a restraining order involving firearms and ammunition issued by any court, the police officer may take custody of any and all firearms and ammunition in plain sight, those discovered pursuant to a consensual search, and those firearms surrendered by the person restrained. If the person restrained is the registered owner of a firearm and knows the location of the firearm, but refuses to surrender the firearm or refuses to disclose the location of the firearm, the person restrained shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. In any case, when a police officer is unable to locate the firearms and ammunition either registered under this chapter or known to the person granted protection by the court, the police officer shall apply to the court for a search warrant pursuant to chapter 803 for the limited purpose of seizing the firearm and ammunition.
(g) Any person disqualified from ownership, possession, control, or the right to transfer ownership of firearms and ammunition under this section shall surrender or dispose of all firearms and ammunition in compliance with section [b]134-7.3.[/b]
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol03_ch0121-0200d/HRS0134/HRS_0134-0007.htm
-
from the article:
will they really come to your house and confiscate your firearms, or are they trying to trick you into surrendering them voluntarily?
also, what if you have a prescription for MJ but never actually pick anything up? are you actually using it?
what if you cancel your prescription, do you still need to surrender your firearms?
in Hawaii, they are using a MJ credit card to buy medical MJ and not cash, so there is a record of you actually buying it. what if the records show that you never actually bought any?
I believe they still allow you to grow your own (10 plants?) for personal use, but not for sale to other patients. So, you could be using without buying from a dispensary.
Whether you use or not, the firearms rules require a year wait after giving up the MM card, plus a doctor's evaluation letter saying you are "no longer addicted".
-
good info, guys
I forgot about growing your own
-
good info, guys
I forgot about growing your own
And this. A poster at CB mentioned it.
"For others, it might be legal and advantageous for married couples to delegate these two activities. The wife might legally obtain a Hawaii Medical Cannabis 329 Registration Card, which permits growing not to exceed ten (10) plants and possessing no more than 4oz of usable cannabis jointly between a registered patient and caregiver. The husband might legally own the firearms. "
-
Not one HRA supporter/member has anything to say about Harvey's comments/the HRA's stance? :-\
-
One thing's for sure. HRA won't fight it.
Harvey thinks it's cool they are giving gun owners 30 days to turn 'em in ( and acting like he never took a drink of alcohol in his life. Must be part of the Reefer Madness generation)
"Harvey Gerwig, head of the Hawaii Rifle Association, partially agreed, saying, “A person who is taking medicine shouldn’t be deprived of their Second Amendment rights.”
But Gerwig also said he considers the state’s medical marijuana program “a fraud on many levels.”
“You’ve got people who are using it for drug purposes, not for medicine,” he said. “In those cases I don’t think they should have a firearm.”
Gerwig credited the police department for giving people 30 days to give up their guns instead of seizing the weapons immediately. But he said it might still be hard for people to sell their firearms within that time frame, noting handguns take at least two weeks to transfer ownership."
Who would think Espero would be on our side:
State Sen. Will Espero said it doesn’t make sense to take guns away from medical marijuana patients.
“They should be going after the real hardcore criminals and bad guys versus patients who need some assistance with their health care needs,” Espero said.
http://www.civilbeat.org/2017/11/honolulu-police-tell-medical-marijuana-patients-to-give-up-their-guns/
I'll jump in the fire. I pretty much agree with the HRA's stance and comments. Logically, it is against the law, and taking another stance is unwinnable, legally or politically. Mandatory registration should have never been passed into law in Hawaii, then there wouldn't be such a predicament today.
Willy, he's and asshole and idiot. He'll say or do anything if he think it'll get him, or keep him, some votes. He doesn't give a rats ass about gun owners or the 2nd.
-
We're screwed.
Medical marijuana users. Illegal. No 2A right. Subject to confiscation.
Aren't prescription pain killers illegal without a prescription, but legal with and users can own guns.
The Feds could raid every dispensary in all the legal states by the letter of the law and shut 'em all down. But they don't.
You would be looking at years behind bars if you're caught working in a pot shop for the amount you're in "possession" of with intent to distribute.
Heck, nevermind the State trying to defy federal law to be a sanctuary city.
As soon as the Legislature passes:
No bump stock
No "assault weapons"
No high capacity mags over 10 rounds
They'll all be illegal and unwinnable, politically or legally.
(9th circuit and all and SCOTUS won't touch it we just found out.)
So why try to fight any of it.
State law on firearms and medical marijuana could be changed with the editing of one or two words, but we won't fight for it.
Worse than not fighting it or speaking out against it, HRA agrees and thanks the HPD for giving firearm owners 30 days to sell off or transfer all their 2A rights.
Meanwhile the illicit marijuana market just got stronger.
(Sorry for the rant Heavies. I know you're a politically active member. I'm just frustrated. Seems like this is the first shot in a crazy political year for Hawaii and we take it lying down. Worse than lying down. By approving of more needless restrictions of our 2A Rights here in Hawaii. "Thank You Sir, may I have another" )
-
We're screwed.
Medical marijuana users. Illegal. No 2A right. Subject to confiscation.
Aren't prescription pain killers illegal without a prescription, but legal with and users can own guns.
The Feds could raid every dispensary in all the legal states by the letter of the law and shut 'em all down. But they don't.
You would be looking at years behind bars if you're caught working in a pot shop for the amount you're in "possession" of with intent to distribute.
Heck, nevermind the State trying to defy federal law to be a sanctuary city.
As soon as the Legislature passes:
No bump stock
No "assault weapons"
No high capacity mags over 10 rounds
They'll all be illegal and unwinnable, politically or legally.
(9th circuit and all and SCOTUS won't touch it we just found out.)
So why try to fight any of it.
State law on firearms and medical marijuana could be changed with the editing of one or two words, but we won't fight for it.
Worse than not fighting it or speaking out against it, HRA agrees and thanks the HPD for giving firearm owners 30 days to sell off or transfer all their 2A rights.
Meanwhile the illicit marijuana market just got stronger.
(Sorry for the rant Heavies. I know you're a politically active member. I'm just frustrated. Seems like this is the first shot in a crazy political year for Hawaii and we take it lying down. Worse than lying down. By approving of more needless restrictions of our 2A Rights here in Hawaii. "Thank You Sir, may I have another" )
I agree with you 100%
Just saying it's was the logical course to take. Until a different angle can be pursued, it would be counter productive to take a stance that cannot be won. IMHO, a smart move.
-
We're screwed.
Medical marijuana users. Illegal. No 2A right. Subject to confiscation.
Aren't prescription pain killers illegal without a prescription, but legal with and users can own guns.
The Feds could raid every dispensary in all the legal states by the letter of the law and shut 'em all down. But they don't.
You would be looking at years behind bars if you're caught working in a pot shop for the amount you're in "possession" of with intent to distribute.
Heck, nevermind the State trying to defy federal law to be a sanctuary city.
As soon as the Legislature passes:
No bump stock
No "assault weapons"
No high capacity mags over 10 rounds
They'll all be illegal and unwinnable, politically or legally.
(9th circuit and all and SCOTUS won't touch it we just found out.)
So why try to fight any of it.
State law on firearms and medical marijuana could be changed with the editing of one or two words, but we won't fight for it.
Worse than not fighting it or speaking out against it, HRA agrees and thanks the HPD for giving firearm owners 30 days to sell off or transfer all their 2A rights.
Meanwhile the illicit marijuana market just got stronger.
(Sorry for the rant Heavies. I know you're a politically active member. I'm just frustrated. Seems like this is the first shot in a crazy political year for Hawaii and we take it lying down. Worse than lying down. By approving of more needless restrictions of our 2A Rights here in Hawaii. "Thank You Sir, may I have another" )
I'm no pot smoker, never was, and likely never will be, but it really does bother me when one segment of our population is attacked in this manner. marijuana users today, people with medical issues tomorrow, ARs the next day, etc.
And it's pretty irritating how most gun owners just take a "sux2bu" position. "hey you got to deal with rapback, I got all my guns already sux2bu". "hey your ARs are getting taken away, I dont like ARs. sux2bu". "10 round handgun mags, I just shoot skeet. sux2bu" etc etc. And like I said about rapback earlier and the guys pretty much gloating they don't need to deal with it, what makes you think they're not going to change the law and make you subject to it? The law is brand new, and it's the next logical step for them to take. Apply for rapback or "voluntarily" turn in all your firearms and ammunition in 30 days. While you're at the police station, we'll have you fill out this form to submit your medical records and whether or not you have a medical marijuana card too. And it's not like they DONT already have all your information if you've registered guns in the past.... Only gunowners with all their guns unregistered will fly under the radar.
When you realize the final endgame of chipping away at 2nd amendment rights is to pretty much make EVERYTHING illegal, you realize that all law abiding gunowners should be supported no matter what their interest is in. The gun community in hawaii is already very small, if you divide it up into factions that only care about specific things, it's becomes even tinier. And yes, that is their objective, as many liberals interpret the 2nd amendment in that a "well regulated militia" = national guard, therefore private citizens have no rights to gun ownership.
-
Not one HRA supporter/member has anything to say about Harvey's comments/the HRA's stance? :-\
I believe that Harvey's comments were just like last time with bump stocks
he made personal comments while in the role of HRA president, and the press went with it, making it look like that was HRA's view
I like Harvey a lot, and he is a smart man doing a thankless job very well
but he needs to realize what happens when you speak to the press as a leader of an organization
unless you preface it with "speaking personally" or "my personable opinion is", you run the risk of having this happen
and sometimes, in editing, the reporter/editor/producer leave those out anyways, either on purpose or to reduce length of the segment
-
UPDATE: HPD will not enforce order requiring marijuana card holders to turn in guns ... but future permits will be denied.
"HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) -
A letter sent to all medical marijuana card holders ordering them to turn in their firearms and ammunition by the end of the yearwill not be enforced and should be disregarded.
The letter, dated Nov. 13, was sent out to card holders without the approval of new Honolulu Police Chief Susan Ballard. Honolulu police say it is common practice for commanders to sign letters on the chief and department’s behalf.
This letter was signed by the head of HPD’s Records Division.
Just because someone has a medical marijuana card doesn’t mean they have the actual drug, law enforcement experts say, and therefore drug charges are difficult to pursue at the state level. But anyone caught with prescription pot can be ordered to surrender weapons.
Federal law does not recognize medical marijuana as legal.
HPD will deny future gun permits for medical marijuana card holders, a practice that was upheld by the court of appeals."
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/36963985/hpd-will-not-enforce-order-requiring-marijuana-card-holders-to-turn-in-guns
-
I agree with Harvey's stance on it. In the end, MJ is a schedule 1 narcotic and deemed illegal federally.
So if somethings illegal on the fed level, but legal on the state side, it's still illegal and can be enforced by other LEO agencies (DEA/FBI) if they wanted to. And it goes the other way also, legal on fed level, but illegal on state (use suppressor reference).
He has to speak on the behalf of the HRA and not promote legal gun owners to do anything illegal. The law's the law.
Maybe the NRA and MJ farms should team up to fight the feds and make MJ legal federally. But I'm sure big pharma would fight against them also.
I'm not sure the history of the people who got the letters, but when I took my handgun class last year, the 1st thing the instructor asked before starting was "who here has a medical MJ perscription?" Then he explained why he asked. So basically, if you had one, leave the class because you're wasting your time.
-
UPDATE: HPD will not enforce order requiring marijuana card holders to turn in guns ... but future permits will be denied.
"HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) -
A letter sent to all medical marijuana card holders ordering them to turn in their firearms and ammunition by the end of the yearwill not be enforced and should be disregarded.
Well, confiscation could not be easily enforced because of the 4th amendment and all the Ex Post Facto law in the constitution. Not that it stopped the police before. But when you have an amendment other than the 2nd involved then they are much less likely to win in court and probably dont want to pay out all those lawsuits they would loose.
-
Well, confiscation could not be easily enforced because of the 4th amendment and all the Ex Post Facto law in the constitution. Not that it stopped the police before. But when you have an amendment other than the 2nd involved then they are much less likely to win in court and probably dont want to pay out all those lawsuits they would loose.
This outcome was what I was hoping for. The police were abusing their access to the MM patient registration lists. They state on the MM website the police would retain access to the list of patients for public safety, so they can see if a person in possession of the drug is registered to legally have it. Nothing was said about using the list to backdoor the firearms registration process and confiscate guns.
When you signed a permit application, you gave HPD permission to access you healthcare records for the purpose of doing a background check for a permit. That permission ended when the permit was approved/rejected. HPD was not given perpetual access to your medical records, so the MM registration should be off limits to the firearms section. Matching that list to gun registrations or permit applications exceeded their limited purpose of that background check.
It'll be interesting to see how the legislature addresses this, because you know they will.
-
The Honolulu Police Department said it is reviewing a controversial policy requiring legal marijuana patients to surrender their guns because pot is considered a federally illegal drug.
The policy review follows community backlash since news of the letters sent to at least 30 cannabis users spread nationally this week via marijuana websites and the media.
surprise surprise, community backlash and publicity does work.
-
When you signed a permit application, you gave HPD permission to access you healthcare records for the purpose of doing a background check for a permit. That permission ended when the permit was approved/rejected. HPD was not given perpetual access to your medical records, so the MM registration should be off limits to the firearms section. Matching that list to gun registrations or permit applications exceeded their limited purpose of that background check.
When I moved here I called the HPD firearms division just to see how much power I had as a physician. They said (right or wrong) that I could report any of my patients at any time for anything I see fit to disqualify a patient from firearm ownership. If I called the police about a patient that would normally be a huge HIPAA violation (unless they were actively suicidal or homicidal). But the medical records waver supposedly gave me permission to call them at any time.
You can see how easily the medical records permission form can be abused by the police but your physician as well. I would personally never sign that form or register a firearm with the state.
-
surprise surprise, community backlash and publicity does work.
With the troubles the police department has had to deal with lately, I'm sure they are trying to perform damage control. I find it interesting that the new chief says she didn't know about the letter. Is the department used to having that much latitude to do their jobs that they can bypass the chief's office on something like this letter? I'm hoping this turns into a teachable moment for the whole department on what not to do in the future.
-
With the troubles the police department has had to deal with lately, I'm sure they are trying to perform damage control. I find it interesting that the new chief says she didn't know about the letter. Is the department used to having that much latitude to do their jobs that they can bypass the chief's office on something like this letter? I'm hoping this turns into a teachable moment for the whole department on what not to do in the future.
In government, there is delegation of authority. it is not feasible for the chief to approve everything that passed through the department personally. If she delegates to her commanders, then they can take actions in her name. But it is her duty to understand the types of things they are doing using her authority, and put it to a stop if she doesn't agree with it. The responsibility of what HPD does ultimately rests with the chief (In other agencies, it's the Director) so ignorance is not a good excuse. I do understand that she's new to the job though.
-
In government, there is delegation of authority. it is not feasible for the chief to approve everything that passed through the department personally. If she delegates to her commanders, then they can take actions in her name. But it is her duty to understand the types of things they are doing using her authority, and put it to a stop if she doesn't agree with it.
In MY government agency, any letters that go out with my signature block would need to be routed through me for approval/signature. If I'm not physically in the office for several days, and the letter is time sensitive, there is still email available to send me a copy for review before letting the section head sign in my absence.
You can delegate authority, but you can't delegate responsibility.
-
In MY government agency, any letters that go out with my signature block would need to be routed through me for approval/signature. If I'm not physically in the office for several days, and the letter is time sensitive, there is still email available to send me a copy for review before letting the section head sign in my absence.
You can delegate authority, but you can't delegate responsibility.
Welp, that's not the case in this situation, as we just found out. :) she may want to revisit the policy of letting subordinates use her authority and her name without her actual stamp of approval. In this case, the signature should have been Raymond Ancheta FOR Susan Ballard (which is basically saying he's signing off the letter with his nameusing the delegated authority). The garbage way the letter is written appears she signed off on the policy and intent of the letters, with Raymond Ancheta processing the individual letters themselves.
And yup, responsibility rests with the head, no matter what.
-
Well, confiscation could not be easily enforced because of the 4th amendment and all the Ex Post Facto law in the constitution. Not that it stopped the police before. But when you have an amendment other than the 2nd involved then they are much less likely to win in court and probably dont want to pay out all those lawsuits they would loose.
the Fourth Amendment is not an absolute bar against searches and seizures. i don't think that a magistrate would have a difficult time finding probable cause to support the issuance of a search warrant. regardless, there are a ton of exceptions to the search warrant requirement. also, i don't think that the ex post facto doctrine applies in this situation.
-
the Fourth Amendment is not an absolute bar against searches and seizures. i don't think that a magistrate would have a difficult time finding probable cause to support the issuance of a search warrant. regardless, there are a ton of exceptions to the search warrant requirement. also, i don't think that the ex post facto doctrine applies in this situation.
Nothing is certain but if police came to my house and seized property like a firearm without a conviction I'd be calling my attorney and fighting that up to the point that they lost and gave back my property.
Im no attorney but if you are allowed to legally purchase property and later the police send you a letter saying "now you cant own that property" and you were not convicted of a crime I believe that fits the spirit of the 4th amendment.
-
Nothing is certain but if police came to my house and seized property like a firearm without a conviction I'd be calling my attorney and fighting that up to the point that they lost and gave back my property.
Im no attorney but if you are allowed to legally purchase property and later the police send you a letter saying "now you cant own that property" and you were not convicted of a crime I believe that fits the spirit of the 4th amendment.
the law is pretty clear in this situation.
if a person is an illegal user of a controlled substance, then that person is prohibited from possessing firearms.
no physician may legally prescribe marijuana as a matter of federal law because marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance. as far as Congress is concerned, marijuana has no currently accepted medical use in treatment and there is a lack of accepted safety for use of the substance under medical supervision.
therefore, under federal law, a user of marijuana is an illegal user of a controlled substance and is prohibited from owning firearms.
under hawaii law, a person who is prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law is also prohibited from possessing firearms under hawaii law.
technically anyone that possesses marijuana is breaking federal law regardless of whether the state has decriminalized it. really, this is just a matter of enforcement. people can hate on the laws all they want, but the law is the law.
NOT a good legal argument: "Your Honor, i don't agree with the law and i don't think it should be that way."
if you want to discuss how the law should be, then that is an entirely different topic.
-
[§134-3.5] Disclosure for firearm permit and registration purposes. A health care provider or public health authority shall disclose health information, including protected health care information, relating to an individual's mental health history, to the appropriate county chief of police in response to a request for the information from the chief of police; provided that:
(1) The information shall be used only for the purpose of evaluating the individual's fitness to acquire or own a firearm; and
(2) The individual has signed a waiver permitting release of the health information for that purpose. [L 2001, c 252, §1]
I see specific language where medical records used to determine fitness are specific to mental health. No other health issues are included.
However, if I were to take this paragraph apart like Legislators do with the Bill of Rights, "Health Records" by itself, ignoring the supplementing "related to an individuals mental health history", then I would have to say there isn't an issue. I don't think that holds water though.
With that, i would say there is a violation of privacy here at least.
-
if you want to discuss how the law should be, then that is an entirely different topic.
Well, then what it "should be" is my feeling then. An unconstitutional law may be crystal clear, but it is still unconstitutional.
State does not enforce federal law by allowing medical marijuana.
State tries to enforce federal law with guns and marijuana
Sounds pretty arbitrary.
If they get to pick and chose why cant I pick and chose, lets say, what I want to pay in taxes?
Well, I wont register a firearm ever. My unregistered collection went to my son when I moved here. He wont ever register them either.
I've made multiple firearms. If I need one, I wont be getting the permission from my doctor, some loser legislator or some politically motivated police department for one.
-
However, if I were to take this paragraph apart like Legislators do with the Bill of Rights, "Health Records" by itself, ignoring the supplementing "related to an individuals mental health history", then I would have to say there isn't an issue. I don't think that holds water though.
With that, i would say there is a violation of privacy here at least.
I would agree. And HPD is probably realizing they're entering a slippery slope here if they're using the medical records and database to flag out certain firearms owners, so they're backing off.
-
Kaiser members need to rally too.... There are waaaay more of you than MM card holders, I'd wager.... Just sayin
-
Update: Ballard says HPD was wrong in seizing firearms. I don't recall in recent memory the HPD chief ever saying they were wrong, it's normally bullshit and redirecting blame. Interesting.....
Only 2 people out of the 30 "voluntarily" turned in their guns. In other words, 95% of the people that got this letter told HPD to fuck off.
“It is not illegal to possess the ones you already have,” Ballard told the Honolulu Police Commission on Wednesday. “Merely having a medical marijuana card doesn’t mean you’re using marijuana. We can’t prove you’re using marijuana. Our practice of having them turn in their firearms was incorrect.” The department is returning firearms to two people who voluntarily relinquished their guns, Ballard said.
............
Ballard also said five HPD officers have been authorized to verify Department of Health marijuana registry records for firearms permit applicants, though confidential patient information is not released in that process.
.....................
Retired state Supreme Court Justice Steven Levinson, a member of the Police Commission, questioned why the department was denying firearm permits for marijuana patients but not people using much stronger prescription drugs.
“I really can’t answer that question,” she said. “The main thing is … what federal law is telling us.”
Federal law prohibits an “unlawful user” of any controlled substance from possessing firearms, and under federal law, marijuana is a controlled substance. Ballard said that includes caregivers of cannabis patients with marijuana cards.
“I recognize the conundrum,” said Commissioner Loretta Ann Sheehan. “(But) respectfully it seems ridiculous. Keeping your old guns violates federal law. That doesn’t make any sense at all.”
“I’m a little puzzled as to why the distinction between medical marijuana and medical opioids,” he told Ballard.
Carl Bergquist, executive director of the Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii, testified before the commission that HPD should revisit the policy since medical cannabis is legal under state law.
“On behalf of physicians, nurses, caregivers and patients involved in the medical cannabis program, the assumption that they’re all impaired or a danger to society is a great insult,” he said. “A policy like this could push people out of the regulated system. We think these patients should not be stigmatized in this fashion.”
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/12/07/hawaii-news/hpd-in-error-over-cannabis-patients-with-guns-chief-says/?HSA=ef7ce414e218674ae3b48ae1e6ab26026109f482
wilson vs lynch no. 14-15700
The burden on Wilson’s core Second Amendment right is not
severe. Title 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and
the Open Letter bar only the sale of firearms to Wilson–not
her possession of firearms. Wilson could have amassed legal
firearms before acquiring a registry card, and 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter would
WILSON V. LYNCH 15
not impede her right to keep her firearms or to use them to
protect herself and her home. In addition, Wilson could
acquire firearms and exercise her right to self-defense at any
time by surrendering her registry card, thereby demonstrating
to a firearms dealer that there is no reasonable cause to
believe she is an unlawful drug user.
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/31/14-15700.pdf
-
Update: Ballard says HPD was wrong in seizing firearms. I don't recall in recent memory the HPD chief ever saying they were wrong, it's normally bullshit and redirecting blame. Interesting.....
Only 2 people out of the 30 "voluntarily" turned in their guns. In other words, 95% of the people that got this letter told HPD to fuck off.
wilson vs lynch no. 14-15700
The burden on Wilson’s core Second Amendment right is not
severe. Title 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and
the Open Letter bar only the sale of firearms to Wilson–not
her possession of firearms. Wilson could have amassed legal
firearms before acquiring a registry card, and 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter would
WILSON V. LYNCH 15
not impede her right to keep her firearms or to use them to
protect herself and her home. In addition, Wilson could
acquire firearms and exercise her right to self-defense at any
time by surrendering her registry card, thereby demonstrating
to a firearms dealer that there is no reasonable cause to
believe she is an unlawful drug user.
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/31/14-15700.pdf
the case you cited is instructive and it provides some understanding of the interpretation of the law, but it is NOT entirely on point. also, the portion that you cited only tangentially addresses the HI medical marijuana cardholder issue.
-
“Merely having a medical marijuana card doesn’t mean you’re using marijuana.
Using this line of reasoning, they shouldn't be denying permits to acquire either...
-
Update: Ballard says HPD was wrong in seizing firearms. I don't recall in recent memory the HPD chief ever saying they were wrong, it's normally bullshit and redirecting blame. Interesting.....
Only 2 people out of the 30 "voluntarily" turned in their guns. In other words, 95% of the people that got this letter told HPD to fuck off.
I hope they got their firearms back.
-
also, what if you have a prescription for MJ but never actually pick anything up? are you actually using it?
what if you cancel your prescription, do you still need to surrender your firearms?
-
I hope they got their firearms back.
Is it just me or does't one have to re-apply for a permit to get your guns back after being turned in/confiscated?
Catch 22???
I hope so too, but are they going to issue a permit to return guns to a MJ card holder?
Thoughts?
-
Is it just me or does't one have to re-apply for a permit to get your guns back after being turned in/confiscated?
Catch 22???
I hope so too, but are they going to issue a permit to return guns to a MJ card holder?
Thoughts?
The erroneous letter that instigated the voluntary surrender should be enough of an argument toward simply returning the firearms without following "standard procedure." If HPD decides to summarily confiscate them, I think a lawsuit would be a slam-dunk.
-
The erroneous letter that instigated the voluntary surrender should be enough of an argument toward simply returning the firearms without following "standard procedure." If HPD decides to summarily confiscate them, I think a lawsuit would be a slam-dunk.
They can jus hand them back, they did so when they took my shotgun from me, they also gave me a pistol permit with no 14 day wait, admitly I waited 3 months, but I wrote the form. They stamped it and gave it back.
-
Only 2 people out of the 30 "voluntarily" turned in their guns. In other words, 95% of the people that got this letter told HPD to fuck off.
Probably old grannies that turned them in
-
Only 2 people out of the 30 "voluntarily" turned in their guns. In other words, 95% of the people that got this letter told HPD to fuck off.
You can't draw the conclusion that 95% refused to comply until the 30-day deadline passes.
A copy of a letter I saw on FB was dated Nov 13. The deadline was "30 days upon receipt of this letter," which would logically begin at least a day or two after the letter was dated.
Since the letter was rescinded on or before Dec 6, we'll never know if any would have refused.
-
You can't draw the conclusion that 95% refused to comply until the 30-day deadline passes.
A copy of a letter I saw on FB was dated Nov 13. The deadline was "30 days upon receipt of this letter," which would logically begin at least a day or two after the letter was dated.
Since the letter was rescinded on or before Dec 6, we'll never know if any would have refused.
Well SWAT coming into somebody’s home is nothing new.
My parents would probably get mad at me for telling you guys this but... before my parents split up my dad was charged with DV against my mom. He grabbed her laptop, slammed it on the ground and broke it. My mom called the cops and filled a complaint against him.
Months later my dad had to go to anger management and was told to turn his guns in or transfer ownership. So he sent them with my uncle in Samoa. Eventually SWAT came for the guns but alas they were no longer in my dads possession.
-
You can't draw the conclusion that 95% refused to comply until the 30-day deadline passes.
A copy of a letter I saw on FB was dated Nov 13. The deadline was "30 days upon receipt of this letter," which would logically begin at least a day or two after the letter was dated.
Since the letter was rescinded on or before Dec 6, we'll never know if any would have refused.
Good point. They were sending the letters out all year though, and the one dated 11/13, which should be among the last ones sent out was very close to being after the deadline.
-
Good point. They were sending the letters out all year though, and the one dated 11/13, which should be among the last ones sent out was very close to being after the deadline.
So, we'd need to know the dates each letter was received by the gun owners before making any conclusions. "All year long" for 30 letters doesn't add any detail. Maybe the 2 who turned in their guns are the only ones sent out before Nov? I don't think we'll ever know unless HPD makes that info public. If anyone failed to comply in 30 days, I don't expect HPD to tell us that. That wouldn't make the department look very good -- either they did nothing about it, or they illegally confiscated the guns.
-
How possible is this scenario in Hawaii? Arrested for "suspicion" of DUI-marijuana?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWyzPpYslYc
-
How possible is this scenario in Hawaii? Arrested for "suspicion" of DUI-marijuana?hpd
It could if the department puts a quota system on the number of drug DUI arrests. I was in a Cannabis in the Workplace presentation that was given by a HPD officer where he basically said that legalization would be the downfall of our civilization. I imagine he's not the only one in the department who feels like that.
-
It could if the department puts a quota system on the number of drug DUI arrests. I was in a Cannabis in the Workplace presentation that was given by a HPD officer where he basically said that legalization would be the downfall of our civilization. I imagine he's not the only one in the department who feels like that.
So next-step would be issuing of the letter advising seizure of firearms and HPD in possession of said firearms until the courts (3-6 months and $$$$s in legal fees) clear your name. After which point would firearms be returned? Does Rapback trigger and gun-taking-cycle start all over again?
Sorry, just trying to extrapolate the next step.
-
It could if the department puts a quota system on the number of drug DUI arrests. I was in a Cannabis in the Workplace presentation that was given by a HPD officer where he basically said that legalization would be the downfall of our civilization. I imagine he's not the only one in the department who feels like that.
Dumb down the population for total control. There is zero reason legalizing for recreational use.
-
So next-step would be issuing of the letter advising seizure of firearms and HPD in possession of said firearms until the courts (3-6 months and $$$$s in legal fees) clear your name. After which point would firearms be returned? Does Rapback trigger and gun-taking-cycle start all over again?
Sorry, just trying to extrapolate the next step.
Unlike the medical marijuana card, a drug DUI would be the proof they needed.
Dumb down the population for total control. There is zero reason legalizing for recreational use.
True, except that tourism would boom and the State would be rich enough to build a light rail completely around the island.
-
Unlike the medical marijuana card, a drug DUI would be the proof they needed.
True, except that tourism would boom and the State would be rich enough to build a light rail completely around the island.
If that was true they would of legalized gamabling a long time ago.
-
Just because they don't legalize it doesn't make it false.
That's like saying pistol mags over ten rounds are wrong or they would be legal.
Lottery and legal weed.
How many real social problems caused? Minuscule.
(Gateway drug? Are they high?)
How much tax money raised? Millions.
Story for another thread though I guess.
-
Drug and alcohol related auto fatalities have doubled in Colorado. A good portion of the profits/taxes are supposed to go towards increased prevention programs.
-
Drug and alcohol related auto fatalities have doubled in Colorado. A good portion of the profits/taxes are supposed to go towards increased prevention programs.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Please include the details of the stats on the claimed increase. What percentage increase due to alcohol, what percentage increase due to cannabis, and what percentage increase due to "other drugs"? Otherwise you're just blowing smoke in the newly-minted mold of "fake news". Unless all (or a substantially disproportionate percentage) of the increase is due to driving under the influence of cannabis, how do you make your case that any increase in alcohol or "other drug" related auto fatalities has anything at all to do with cannabis legalization? Please include enough detail to present a complete and coherent argument and supporting evidence.
-
Do you copy and paste your replies? I read the statistics in one of my safety trade magazine articles but will take some time to find the article again so you'll have to wait. Also, I don't really care. If you couldn't tell from my second sentence, I'm a supporter of marijuana legalization as long as a significant portion of the funds goes towards prevention. I believe the impact on the illegal drug trade will counteract any perceived increase in the auto fatality rate.
-
Do you copy and paste your replies? I read the statistics in one of my safety trade magazine articles but will take some time to find the article again so you'll have to wait. Also, I don't really care. If you couldn't tell from my second sentence, I'm a supporter of marijuana legalization as long as a significant portion of the funds goes towards prevention. I believe the impact on the illegal drug trade will counteract any perceived increase in the auto fatality rate.
I understand you resent that someone would question your unsupported assertions and actually have the temerity to ask you to provide an actual argument and supporting evidence, and also understand that your attitude that you "don't really care" goes hand in hand with your general practice of merely spewing unsupported nonsense. Once we see your actual argument and evidence we can all make our own judgments about the validity of your claim.
The only thing I copy and paste are quotes from other articles and/or people, such as the quote from judge Kozinski the other day on another thread. I admit that I do have a bad habit of asking people for evidence to support crap they spew, so it may seem like that's a copy and paste situation, but only because so many people here make unsupported claims.
-
The number of drivers involved in fatal crashes in Colorado who tested positive for marijuana has risen
sharply each year since 2013, more than doubling in that time, federal and state data
show.
Colorado transportation and public safety officials, however, say the rising number of pot-related traffic
fatalities cannot be definitively linked to legalized marijuana.
Positive test results reflected in the NHTSA data do not indicate whether a driver was high at the time of
the crash since traces of marijuana use from weeks earlier also can appear as a positive result.
There's no scientific way to determine how many of these fatalities would have happened anyway while using alcohol without the legalization of pot.
Also, as was in the article, the biggest problem in drug tests for pot is the drug remains in the system for longer than the individual is intoxicated, unlike alcohol in the bloodstream. Workplace drug tests don't differentiate those getting high at work from those only using on the weekends or the night before.
https://www.denverpost.com/2017/08/25/colorado-marijuana-traffic-fatalities/
-
I understand you resent that someone would question your unsupported assertions and actually have the temerity to ask you to provide an actual argument and supporting evidence,...
I know that it's irritating to me when someone asks for references, but Puna's got a point. Got a lot of people that blindly join the bandwagon, try to be the first one out with news on unreliable data, and trying to make the facts fit the agenda instead of the other way around.
Both sides of an argument should be putting up references when possible.
-
I know that it's irritating to me when someone asks for references, but Puna's got a point. Got a lot of people that blindly join the bandwagon, try to be the first one out with news on unreliable data, and trying to make the facts fit the agenda instead of the other way around.
Both sides of an argument should be putting up references when possible.
It took me 10 seconds to Google the reference I posted which semi-supported RKLapp's assertion that pot-related fatalities are double in Colorado.
When I say "related", it's in the context of "coincidentally."
I quoted the part where it also says, since "testing positive for marijuana" does not equal "driving while intoxicated," there is no causal connection between the test results and the fatal crash.
So, the little "fact" RK posted from his reading says little more than there has been an increase in the number of people dying in car crashes who also smoked weed in the last 2 weeks or so.
More people testing positive makes sense, now that the drug is legal recreationally. But without more specific tests being developed, there's no indication there is an increase in the number of people driving high.
-
I understand you resent that someone would question your unsupported assertions and actually have the temerity to ask you to provide an actual argument and supporting evidence, and also understand that your attitude that you "don't really care" goes hand in hand with your general practice of merely spewing unsupported nonsense. Once we see your actual argument and evidence we can all make our own judgments about the validity of your claim.
SNIP
Had to look that one up. Gonna have to use that one! :thumbsup:
-
Drug and alcohol related auto fatalities have doubled in Colorado. A good portion of the profits/taxes are supposed to go towards increased prevention programs.
It's been 72 hours and the above poster has failed to respond with the requested data that would support his implication that cannabis is responsible for an increase in "auto fatalities" or any other vehicular events.
Personally, I don't see in the current totality of the data any way that any relatively objective analysis could lead one to rationally conclude that cannabis is responsible for any increases. I also don't rule out that it is possible that future research could discover some causal relationship, but it certainly isn't there now. The "studies" that claim such a linkage, especially the ones claiming cannabis is responsible for the increases, are "flawed", either in their design or their cherry picking of data that allows them to publish the conclusion they were seeking prior to doing the study itself.
Given the original poster's lack of response, I cherry picked a few quotes (I've included the links to all of the full articles) to counter his claim:
Traffic fatalities linked to marijuana are up sharply in Colorado. Is legalization to blame?
Authorities say the numbers cannot be definitively linked to legalized pot
https://www.denverpost.com/2017/08/25/colorado-marijuana-traffic-fatalities/
Colorado transportation and public safety officials, however, say the rising number of pot-related traffic fatalities cannot be definitively linked to legalized marijuana.
Law enforcement officials, prosecutors and public policy makers concede there’s still too little information about marijuana and how it’s detected to understand just how much the drug is affecting traffic fatalities.
The Colorado State Patrol said officers believed marijuana was a factor in more than 17 percent of all DUI arrests they made in 2016. The year before, it was about 13 percent. In the first six months of 2017, it was at 14.5 percent, although the number of fatal crashes in which alcohol and drugs were a factor has increased by 28 percent.
Also, FARS records only the presence of the drug — not its potency; how recently it had been used; whether it was a factor in the crash; and whether the driver who tested positive was at fault or even ticketed.
“That doesn’t mean we should dismiss any concern about cannabis-impaired driving,” NCIA’s Taylor said, “but it does mean we should be very careful about what gets read into data that doesn’t actually give us any specific insight into the issue.”
* * * * *
Traffic Fatalities in Colorado
[When looking at these comparisons between 2005 and 2016 keep in mind that cannabis wasn't legal recreationally until 2013, and that the population of Colorado has increased dramatically since 2005 (the past several years at a rate of 1.8% per year), thus in all likelihood also dramatically increasing both the number of drivers and the total number of miles driven in 2016.]
https://www.codot.gov/news/documents/safety-press-conference-boards-jan-31-2017
Total Crashes: Greater number in 2005 than 2016
Fatal Crashes: Virtually Identical number in 2005 and 2016
Serious Injuries: Greater number in 2005 than 2016
Serious Injury Rate: 15% LOWER in 2016 compared to 2005
Fatal Injury Rate: Virtually identical in 2005 and 2016
* * * * *
Marijuana legalization has not increased traffic fatalities
https://coloradopolitics.com/marijuana-legalization-has-not-increased-traffic-fatalities/
In fact, marijuana legalization has not increased overall traffic fatality rates nor the total number of non-fatal crashes, according to two separate studies conducted by Columbia University and the University of Texas-Austin.
Additionally, Colorado State Patrol reports a decrease in the number of driving impaired accidents since marijuana sales became legal.
A study released last week in the American Journal of Public Health evaluated crash fatality rates in Colorado and Washington before and after the states legalized marijuana. The researchers then compared those rates to eight control states with similar traffic, roadway and population characteristics that did not alter their marijuana laws. The changes in motor-vehicle-crash fatality rates observed in Washington and Colorado were not “significantly different” from those observed in the control states.
Another study in the same journal last year found that states with medical cannabis laws had lower traffic fatality rates compared to states where marijuana is not legal. And there was an immediate decline in car deaths following the establishment of a legal marijuana market – particularly among those under 44 years of age.
* * * * *
After states legalized medical marijuana, traffic deaths fell
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-marijuana-traffic-death/after-states-legalized-medical-marijuana-traffic-deaths-fell-idUSKBN14H1LQ
Legalization of medical marijuana is not linked with increased traffic fatalities, a new study finds. In some states, in fact, the number of people killed in traffic accidents dropped after medical marijuana laws were enacted.
“Instead of seeing an increase in fatalities, we saw a reduction, which was totally unexpected,” said Julian Santaella-Tenorio, the study’s lead author and a doctoral student at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health in New York City.
Deaths dropped 11 percent on average in states that legalized medical marijuana, researchers discovered after analyzing 1.2 million traffic fatalities nationwide from 1985 through 2014.
It’s not clear why traffic deaths might drop when medical marijuana becomes legal, and the study can only show an association; it can’t prove cause and effect.
* * * * *
American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) February 2017
US Traffic Fatalities, 1985–2014, and Their Relationship to Medical Marijuana Laws
Julian Santaella-Tenorio DVM, MSc, Christine M. Mauro PhD, Melanie M. Wall PhD, June H. Kim MPhil, MHS, Magdalena Cerdá DrPH, Katherine M. Keyes PhD, Deborah S. Hasin PhD, Sandro Galea MD, DrPH, and Silvia S. Martins MD, PhD
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303577
Objectives. To determine the association of medical marijuana laws (MMLs) with traffic fatality rates.
Methods. Using data from the 1985–2014 Fatality Analysis Reporting System, we examined the association between MMLs and traffic fatalities in multilevel regression models while controlling for contemporaneous secular trends. We examined this association separately for each state enacting MMLs. We also evaluated the association between marijuana dispensaries and traffic fatalities.
Results. On average, MML states had lower traffic fatality rates than non-MML states. Medical marijuana laws were associated with immediate reductions in traffic fatalities in those aged 15 to 24 and 25 to 44 years, and with additional yearly gradual reductions in those aged 25 to 44 years. However, state-specific results showed that only 7 states experienced post-MML reductions. Dispensaries were also associated with traffic fatality reductions in those aged 25 to 44 years.
Conclusions. Both MMLs and dispensaries were associated with reductions in traffic fatalities, especially among those aged 25 to 44 years. State-specific analysis showed heterogeneity of the MML–traffic fatalities association, suggesting moderation by other local factors. These findings could influence policy decisions on the enactment or repealing of MMLs and how they are implemented.
* * * * *
Unpacking Pot’s Impact in Colorado
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/08/unpacking-pots-impact-in-colorado/
Like the Rocky Mountain HIDTA’s 2015 report, the AAA report cautions that testing positive for THC doesn’t mean the driver was impaired or at fault for the crash. The AAA report added that many marijuana-positive drivers also had alcohol and other drugs in their system, “which in some cases likely contributed more significantly to the crash than did the THC.”
* * * * *
Study of fatal car accidents suggests medical marijuana may be helping curb opioid use
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160915163805.htm
A study conducted at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health found that there were fewer drivers killed in car crashes who tested positive for opioids in states with medical marijuana laws than before the laws went into effect. The study is one of the first to assess the link between state medical marijuana laws and opioid use at the individual level. Findings will be published online in the American Journal of Public Health.
* * * * *
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/03/990325110700.htm
University Of Toronto Study Shows Marijuana Not A Factor In Driving Accidents
The safety hazards of smoking marijuana and driving are overrated, says University of Toronto researcher Alison Smiley, whose study of impairment and traffic accident reports from several countries shows that marijuana taken alone in moderate amounts does not significantly increase a driver's risk of causing an accident.
* * * * *