GleamLaw

Hungry.

Ammon: The potential impact is that you could be prevented from owning or purchasing firearms because you are a known habitual drug user, aka a criminal. I could get cute with words and "lawyer" an argument in your defense, but that isn't how the FTA or DEA will see it.

It may sound harsh, but federal law doesn't really differentiate between a habitual illicit drug user and a medical marijuana patient-- both groups are breaking federal law and therefore can lawfully be stripped of certain rights. Inversely, MMJ patients are not a protected group, so governments, companies, and individuals may also create policies that discriminate against them.

One of the least understood problems with cannabis prohibition is that it allows the government to strip people/companies of their constitutional rights. Not only your firarms, your rights to privacy, to contract, to vote, to conduct business across state lines, and to live a free life are all at risk.

That the Feds aren't kicking in your door has less to do with their authority to do so and more to do with their limited resources.

Neil: Funny enough, we do not even ask people if they have ever done drugs. It's just not part of the conversation.

Neil: While it is federally illegal, an employer can still discriminate against cannabis users, even if it is permitted by state law.

Cassidy: It depends on the quality of his Law Blog. In this modern era, we'd need a Bob Loblaw who could lob law bombs effectively.