Comment by int_19h | Hacker News Reader

Comment by int_19h | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

You're correct. In fact, there doesn't need to be a joint at all - you become a prohibited person by virtue of being "an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance". Note that, since this is a federal law, it doesn't matter if it's legal on state level.

There's already precedent that having a state medical marijuana card already makes one ineligible, and using as an ID when trying to purchase a firearm is grounds for automatic denial by the seller. Hawaii, which requires all firearms to be registered, went even further, proactively cross-referencing their gun registry with the medical marijuana one (https://www.leafly.com/news/politics/surrender-your-guns-pol...).

It's not really surprising that the law is so broad, given that it was written in 1968 when anti-drug craze was still ramping up. The reason why it doesn't get amended is, I think, because it manages to touch two third rails at once: Republicans don't want to be perceived as "soft on drugs" by their base, while Democrats are afraid of being seeing as not sufficiently aggressive wrt "gun violence". And so, here we are.

It's strange especially because marihuana makes people very docile and laid back. Probably not a bad state for someone handing a firearm.

On the other hand for someone pumped up on coke it would be a big worry. Though I guess if the US had medical coke cards they would be banned as well :)

Cocaine is schedule II. You can get a script for it. So the thing you say not only exists, but such a person could hypothetically legally own guns unlike the pot user.

WTF...

So Marijuana with a widely accepted medical benefit is considered a more dangerous drug than coke which is much more addictive and makes (some) people total pumped up jerks?

I really can't imagine that, it should be the other way around. This is what I don't understand about the US federal drug policy. Most countries define marijuana as a "soft drug".

I wonder how this came to be.. It sounds a bit like a 'war on hippies' thing from the 70s still lingering around the law books or something.

It's much older than that. There was that one guy who was the founding commissioner of the US Federal Bureau of Narcotics back in 1930s, and he was obsessed with the dangers of weed in particular:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger

As to why, the guy had many purported horror stories to tell about weed - collecting such was his hobby. Often, although not always, they boiled down to overt or covert racism. Some choice examples:

“There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others.”

“I think the traffic has increased in marihuana, and unfortunately particularly among the young people. We have been running into a lot of traffic among these jazz musicians, and I am not speaking about the good musicians, but the jazz type.”

“Colored students at the Univ. of Minn, partying with female students (white) smoking and getting their sympathy with stories of racial persecution. Result: pregnancy.”

Reply on news.ycombinator.com