ShareThis Page
Trib editorial: End indefensible ‘Schedule I’ status to resolve medical marijuana-gun rights conflict |

Trib editorial: End indefensible ‘Schedule I’ status to resolve medical marijuana-gun rights conflict

| Thursday, January 4, 2018 8:55 p.m.

A senseless, outmoded federal policy poses a dilemma for Americans in 29 states that have legalized marijuana, including patients who register for Pennsylvania’s legal medical marijuana program — and thereby surrender their Second Amendment rights.

Per The Philadelphia Inquirer, alcoholics and people who’ve undergone short-term, involuntary mental-health treatment don’t lose their constitutional gun rights. But Pennsylvanians legally prescribed marijuana for 17 serious health conditions do — and they even have to dispose of firearms obtained before they registered, say state police administering the patient registry.

That’s because the feds still classify marijuana as a “Schedule I” drug that, like heroin and LSD, has “no currently accepted medical use,” which flies in the face of current science, and “a high potential for abuse,” which defines opioids, not marijuana. Alcohol, demonstrably more harmful than marijuana, isn’t on Schedule I. So, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which regulates gun sales nationwide, says any marijuana use disqualifies any would-be gun buyer — but not alcoholics.

That doesn’t violate the Second Amendment, a federal appellate court ruled in 2016. Yet the National Rifle Association is silent. Along with federal marijuana prohibition’s needless criminalization of untold numbers of otherwise law-abiding Americans, medical marijuana patients’ gun-rights dilemma requires ending marijuana’s indefensible Schedule I classification.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.