On Jan 11 2020 small amounts of recreational cannabis will be decriminalized, and people caught with 3 grams or less will only face $130 fine. Since it would no longer be considered a drug conviction would HPD still have the legal authority to confiscate weapons?

e.  Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
Warning:  The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or
decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.

HPD follows (supposedly) Federal Firearms Laws.

The minimal bar re firearm laws are the Federal laws. The state can, does, and has, obviously, passed many laws far more restrictive than the federal laws. Considering that many of the federal laws themselves are blatantly infringing, all I can say about the state is: fuck them.

No one has ever overdosed and died on MJ.  Tripped balls, yes. But not died. 

Many have used canabis oil to cure some forms of cancer, seizures, and other incurable ailments.

So I think that Trump like many before him are purposely not removing it as a schedule 1 narcotic.  Big pharma will suffer big time.  And the fact that since it's status, many universities cannot do studies either.  It takes jumping thru  many hoops to be able to do so.  (My logic and no links to support claim)

But to extrapolate from this case (and the preclinical evidence) that cannabis oil is a suppressed cure for
all types and stages of cancer is, at best, an innocent inference (educated guess) and, at worst, a delusion
that has gone viral on the internet and is endangering the lives of patients with curable cancer who
might choose to take cannabis oil in lieu of conventional therapy without any scientific follow up with imaging
or surgery.

There's no scientific evidence that cannabis oil has ever cured any form of cancer.

https://integrativeonc.org/news/research-blog/277-does-cannabis-cure-cancer

There's no scientific evidence that cannabis oil has ever cured any form of cancer.

https://integrativeonc.org/news/research-blog/277-does-cannabis-cure-cancer

It's one thing to argue that purported (possibly exaggerated or completely false) benefits should determine a change in legal status.

It's another thing to argue that it's lack of documented harm ("costs"), compared to other completely legal status psychotropic substances (like alcohol and tobacco, etc.), merits it having the same or similar legal status of those legal substances clearly documented as more harmful.

IIRC theres a publishing by Nixon's guys who studied it back in the 70's?  Then tried to bury it's findings after what they found it does. #tinfoil

And science stopped studying MJ in the 70s.

 

The honest science, hence the tinfoil hashtag.

It's bogus to argue the "lack of harm" comparison between LEGAL products versus ILLEGAL/BANNED drugs. 

**** Why is it "bogus"? If one allows that any cost/benefit analysis is germane to decisions about legal availability, why would "lack of harm" be ruled out as a benchmark?

It's reasonable to assume the number of people choosing the legal substances over illegal is significantly higher. 

**** You mean like it's "reasonable" to "assume" that more guns means more gun crime? Total fallacy. Plus, you have no evidence that cannabis is not as widely used as alcohol or nicotine delivery systems.

Hence, the instances of harm will naturally be higher among legal substance users/abusers.

**** No one is talking about "raw numbers", that's obviously absurd, just like the fake gun/crime stats. The only valid comparison is "rate per users".

There's not enough data yet to scientifically say if the cost and benefits of legalizing recreational pot is better or worse than alcohol.

**** Yeah, it's been at least since the 1960s (when I became part of the conversation) that people have been saying that. Get real, people who oppose cannabis use, legal or otherwise, will never grant that there is convincing evidence that cannabis is overall less harmful than alcohol, and would thus merit the same legal status as alcohol, be it legal or illegal... and since alcohol will never me made illegal (again), their only option to to attempt to keep cannabis illegal via any forms of lying and ceceit and fraud they can muster. Again, just like the hard core anti-gun people will never admit that defensive gun uses outnumber the harmful uses. They don't care what the Obama CDC or anyone else ever concludes... "guns bad", and in this case "cannabis bad".

The only measurable impact on legalizing pot so far is in the judicial system.  Fewer arrests and convictions for pot possession and distribution means less crowded prisons, more time for police and the courts to clear other cases, and less gang crime related to production and sales of pot.  Those are societal impacts, though, not directly related to using pot.

**** I don't know if those claims, especially about "gangs", are true... why would you imply that "societal impacts" are not worthy of consideration in any cost/benefit analysis?

I think anytime you put a chemical compound in your body, especially one that has psychotropic effects, you're going to experience negative side-effects. 

**** "Only" negative side effects? What if someone wrote: "I think anytime you put a chemical compound in your body, especially one that has psychotropic effects, you're going to experience positive side-effects."  Why would it necessarily only be one way? Pretty sure any time any substance capable of being absorbed by the body is ingested it will have effects... and people can then label those as positive or negative as they see fit. Certainly people consuming nicotine, via one delivery device or another, focus on the "positive" effects and believe that the "negative side effects" are worth the risk, if any (e.g. re vapor delivery systems). Is "sugar" a "chemical compound" "that has psychotropic effects" and "negative side-effects"? What about caffeine? What about fat? People that "crave" those chemical compounds clearly experience a psychotropic effect upon consumption, and there are clear negative side-effects from such consumption, especially among those people who use those chemical compounds to "self-medicate". What's the cost to individuals and society of the medical costs incurred by the obvious overconsumption of a percentage of daily calories from those chemical compounds and long term medical consequences (e.g. the "obesity epidemic" and consequent rates of diabetes, heart disease, joint problems, etc.)

Increased likelihood of mental disorders such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder have been linked to regular, long-term use of pot.  Heavy, long-term use by adolescents has been shown to reduce cognitive development.  Many health issues linked to smoking pot are also linked to the patient's genetics - no different than lifelong smokers who never get cancer and alcoholics who never have liver or brain issues.  Those who are genetically predisposed to addiction, health problems and mental issues are likewise at higher risk when regularly using pot or other similar drugs.

**** So are you arguing that since cannabis is just like (or possibly less harmful than) alcohol and tobacco/nicotine that it should share the same legal status: legal?

Time will tell.  I find it telling that it's left up to voters to decide on legalizing a DRUG.  Voters are not exactly the best group to make such decisions.  Most will vote however the media sways them, and we all know the media is biased.

**** Yeah, "voters" don't have a clue... well, at least a significant proportion of them, if it comes to "objectively" evaluating the "scientific" evidence. Unfortunately, much of the "science", as with "climate science" ("97% of climate scientists agree...") or "gun violence research", the researchers themselves often have overt biases, as to the people or entities that fund the research and expect the researchers to come up with a result that reinforces their predetermined position on any issue. Plus, as I think you mentioned earlier, law enforcement opposes legalization because keeping it illegal provides them huge amounts of money. With many billions of dollars at stake, it's going to be difficult, if even possible at all, to filter all the "data" into degree of true or false or real rates of "danger".

It's bogus to argue the "lack of harm" comparison between LEGAL products versus ILLEGAL/BANNED drugs. 

**** Why is it "bogus"? If one allows that any cost/benefit analysis is germane to decisions about legal availability, why would "lack of harm" be ruled out as a benchmark?