Medical Cannabis Users In Ohio Learn They’re Ineligible To Own Firearms

[bcking 3,157]

9 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

virginia. but i don't think our good samaritan laws stops the cops from arresting people for possession. i don't know.

I don't know about Virginia. In most places it protects the user and the person who calls from crimes including possession. 

 

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter7/section18.2-251.03/

 

I hate legal jargon. From glancing through it I believe it is saying that if you satisfy the 5 criteria, you are "defended from prosecution" (Can't get in trouble). 

 

EDIT: While typing this you edited and added a link to the same thing

 

I had to google what an "affirmative defense" is to be honest, but it fits with my interpretation.

 

Edited December 8, 2017 by bcking

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

4 minutes ago, bcking said:

I think in one of my earlier posts I added a word like "generally". In subsequent posts I guess I have left it out.

 

Yes it happens. It is fairly rare and is a consequence of dehydration and hypernatremia. I apologize for leaving out that caveat in subsequent posts.

 

Some people with cannabis withdrawal exhibiting vomiting and could potentially die from similar symptoms. Though I don't think it has ever been reported (to my knowledge).

usually because of heart attack or stroke associated with seizures in people with less than good health,  I am sure you probably left out a generally somewhere. No big deal

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Nature Boy Flair said:

usually because of heart attack or stroke associated with seizures in people with less than good health,  I am sure you probably left out a generally somewhere. No big deal

Heart failure more commonly than heart attack, as a result of dehydration (at least in my experience and understanding). Heart failure can led to an MI though if cardiac output is impaired enough, particularly in those with already impaired coronary artery circulation. Hypernatremia can result in seizures.

[smilesammich 10,727]

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

I don't know about Virginia. In most places it protects the user and the person who calls from crimes including possession. 

 

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter7/section18.2-251.03/

 

I hate legal jargon. From glancing through it I believe it is saying that if you satisfy the 5 criteria, you are "defended from prosecution" (Can't get in trouble). 

 

EDIT: While typing this you edited and added a link to the same thing

 

I had to google what an "affirmative defense" is to be honest, but it fits with my interpretation.

 

i don't think any of this keeps the police from obtaining a warrant to be executed at a later date, either. 

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

i don't think any of this keeps the police from obtaining a warrant to be executed at a later date, either. 

I would argue it would. If they obtained the warrant based on information obtained from the call and their "first response" actions, the addict/caller would still have an "affirmative defense", based on how I read the law. But like I said before, I hate legal jargon. 

 

Point #5 would apply I think: 

 

The evidence for the prosecution of an offense enumerated in this subsection was obtained as a result of the individual seeking or obtaining emergency medical attention.

 

If they obtained the warrant due to information obtained as a result of the individual seeking emergency medical attention, then any evidence obtained from that warrant would also apply (I think?)

Edited December 8, 2017 by bcking

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

6 minutes ago, bcking said:

Heart failure more commonly than heart attack, as a result of dehydration (at least in my experience and understanding). Heart failure can led to an MI though if cardiac output is impaired enough, particularly in those with already impaired coronary artery circulation. Hypernatremia can result in seizures.

Glad we cleared all that up. , lot medical misinformation floating around the internet. Just wanted us to be factual. Could save a life. Who knows 

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, bcking said:

I would argue it would. If they obtained the warrant based on information obtained from the call and their "first response" actions, the addict/caller would still have an "affirmative defense", based on how I read the law. But like I said before, I hate legal jargon. 

if that were the case, addicts in drug houses would routinely call in medical emergencies to safeguard them from persecution - don't you think? i mean that's really the only scenario where after the fact possession charges come up. if police are watching a certain address because they've had 5 overdose calls there in a week - i would think they could legally get a warrant and charge individuals with possession. and does this only protect the person who makes the call?

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

if that were the case, addicts in drug houses would routinely call in medical emergencies to safeguard them from persecution - don't you think? i mean that's really the only scenario where after the fact possession charges come up. if police are watching a certain address because they've had 5 overdose calls there in a week - i would think they could legally get a warrant and charge individuals with possession. and does this only protect the person who makes the call?

To my knowledge it is the person who makes the call, and the person who is sick. So if it was a "drug house" and there were other people there, I don't think they would be protected you're right.

 

I think the defense could ask the police "Why were you waiting outside that building?" and if the police explained that their evidence was obtained due to overdose calls then they would have an "affirmative defense". Similarly if the answer to the question "What evidence did you present to obtain your warrant?" and the answer was evidence obtained during 911 calls, then again it would have an affirmative defense.

 

As for drug houses routinely calling in medical emergencies, I think eventually you could argue that they aren't calling them "in good faith" (if they aren't indeed having a true medical emergency). But that I think would be muddier waters. If a person happens to have an overdose every single day and every single day it is called in, they are all in good faith. There is no stipulation saying "If you keep needing medical attention for an overdose, eventually you will lose legal protection".

Edited December 8, 2017 by bcking

[smilesammich 10,727]

20 minutes ago, bcking said:

I would argue it would. If they obtained the warrant based on information obtained from the call and their "first response" actions, the addict/caller would still have an "affirmative defense", based on how I read the law. But like I said before, I hate legal jargon. 

 

Point #5 would apply I think: 

 

The evidence for the prosecution of an offense enumerated in this subsection was obtained as a result of the individual seeking or obtaining emergency medical attention.

 

If they obtained the warrant due to information obtained as a result of the individual seeking emergency medical attention, then any evidence obtained from that warrant would also apply (I think?)

well, this is a small town. a person would need a pretty good lawyer to get that defense to stick after the fact, i bet.

because of where we're located (near a major route to baltimore, drug central) police have focused their efforts on pulling people over on that stretch in hopes of catching traffickers. every once in a while they make a huge bust. but the minor blip in supply these busts cause is no match for the demand. especially since we're not doing anything to get addicts treatment. if you can afford it, great. if not, your doomed.

[-Trinity- 513]

25 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

especially since we're not doing anything to get addicts treatment. if you can afford it, great. if not, your doomed.

1

imho, the focus should be more on prevention. I'm shocked by the addiction rates in this country and I'm wondering what the cause is.

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, Beachlover said:

imho, the focus should be more on prevention. I'm shocked by the addiction rates in this country and I'm wondering what the cause is.

years and years of not treating the source of the problem in any meaningful or effective way. then there's the cost of getting treatment and what insurance will cover.

[-Trinity- 513]

12 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

years and years of not treating the source of the problem in any meaningful or effective way. 

But what is an effective and meaningful way? I remember the whole "say no to drugs" campaign in the 80's. Heck, the slogan made it even to Europe.

 

[smilesammich 10,727]

4 minutes ago, Beachlover said:

But what is an effective and meaningful way? I remember the whole "say no to drugs" campaign in the 80's. Heck, the slogan made it even to Europe.

 

treating the problem of drug addiction means treating the drug addiction. prevention is worthless, unless you're talking about honest education about drugs and the disease of addiction. i think prevention in the form of education is good for kids/teens - especially now when many kids have parents who are addicts. but the education has to be truthful. 'just say no' is about the dumbest approach i can think of. same thing as 'abstinence only' sex ed. worthless.

and evidence of not being truthful in our approach to prevention of addiction is how we lump them all together and come up with ridiculous rules like if you use medical marijuana you can't own a gun. why? for what scientific reason?

 

[-Trinity- 513]

7 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

treating the problem of drug addiction means treating the drug addiction. prevention is worthless, unless you're talking about honest education about drugs and the disease of addiction. i think prevention in the form of education is good for kids/teens - especially now when many kids have parents who are addicts. but the education has to be truthful. 'just say no' is about the dumbest approach i can think of. same thing as 'abstinence only' sex ed. worthless.

and evidence of not being truthful in our approach to prevention of addiction is how we lump them all together and come up with ridiculous rules like if you use medical marijuana you can't own a gun. why? for what scientific reason?

 

Maybe because legalisation of marijuana is relatively new? Most people grew up with alcohol, meaning its something they are used to being around. Parents having a glass of wine during dinner or a beer at the end of the day. Very common, less scary... 
I can imagine that the same way the legislators think, not saying it makes sense, but I can imagine that's what they think now. Who knows if they will change their minds in the future. 

 

The problem with treating the addiction is that it can only succeed if the addict acknowledges he has a problem and is willing to work on resolving it. From what I have seen ( not backed by any scientific proof or research ) most addicts don't follow through. They quit or fall back into the addiction. 

 

I agree that the campaign is kinda lame, but for some reason, I have never forgotten about the slogan.

[Dashinka 25,854]

3 hours ago, smilesammich said:

our problem right now is heroin. it's very bad. and the community argues about if we should just let those overdosing die or give them narcan and save their lives. the thinking is that they chose to do heroin and they should deal with those consequences. but if you look at drug addiction as a disease and want to stop the disease from spreading you have to actually treat it, not just put people in jail and give them court fines and probation with drug tests, which they inevitably fail and end up right back at square one. if all the money is going into incarceration and most addicts can't afford means of actual rehabilitation the problem is only going to balloon. same thing with meth. i don't think there are any healthy people that want to be addicted to meth. get meth addicts healthy, they'll stop doing meth. attacking things from the supply or possession angle is short sighted. imo.

Just curious, is your locality discussing safe injection sites?  I often listen to a radio station out of Seattle, and this is a pretty big topic in that area.