She believes it’s essential = she believes she may actually need to use it. So, she perceives gun availability to be necessary for her own well-being.
Your perception is evidently different, but it seems to me as if you actually have the necessary information to understand hers.
I haven’t read the whole thread carefully enough to see if anyone else has made the same point, but here’s my WAG:
[Armchair psychologist] She feels scared and vulnerable, at least partly due to the pain and health issues. Having a gun makes her feel less vulnerable. Giving up the gun would make her feel more vulnerable. Marijuana might ease her pain but it wouldn’t make her feel any safer. [/ap]
OP didn’t ask whether the friend has a right, he asked why.
This is not complicated.
Molly Tibbets had as statistically very small chance of getting murdered too.
It does make sense. Your friend is taking Vicodin which is a Schedule 2 narcotic. Marijuana is a Schedule 1 narcotic. There are FDA approved marijuana derivatives that are Schedule 2.
The DEA has the short version of the scheduled drugs. Schedule 1 drugs—marijuana, cocaine, heroin—are always off-limits federally, though as we know, weed is no longer a big deal socially, the ATF takes marijuana and guns seriously. Prescription drugs (Schedule 2-5) are not illegal, when taken by someone who has a valid prescription.
Yup and statistically her having a gun would have been more dangerous to her than not having a gun.
This is not true.
Single woman here. I’ve been assaulted and had my house violently broken into but have not had a gun. I can understand why a woman would feel safer and more secure with a gun, though (regardless of stats–this is a feeling). And if this woman’s pain is caused by a medical condition that leaves her more vulnerable, she may well feel that the pain may hurt her quality of life, but not being able to defend herself may end her life. I’m not saying these are entirely rational, but feelings are not rational.
Also, I’ve known people who get enraged that the federal government “takes away our guns” for ANY reason. It doesn’t sound like that’s the friend’s reaction, but rage can carry people quite a ways.
I’ve also been in severe, unrelenting, 24/7 pain long-term. At that pain level, principles fly out the window, and you’d give almost anything to get relief. Her pain doesn’t sound that severe. For her, the trade-off of perceived protection for relief of mild to moderate pain obviously isn’t worth it.
She could have been deader! Thank goodness she wasn’t armed!
If she’d had a gun, her killer might have taken it off her and used it on her. This way she’s much less dead and can’t we all agree that’s for the better?
The operative word here is killer. not carrying a gun because a killer might kill you with it is solidly on the low side of the argument. That’s like saying you shouldn’t get a vaccine because you might have an allergic reaction.
What the op hasn’t established is any benefit of marijuana over Vicodin. It’s as if we’re supposed to assume marijuana is some kind of a miracle drug for pain. There is no medical evidence that it is.
It’s not merely buying and using; it’s possessing marijuana. Actually, as long as someone has a medical marijuana card, he or she cannot legally possess a gun, regardless of whether she uses or possesses marijuana:
yes but they can use the Schedule 2 version of the drug with a prescription.
This may be politically incorrect to say, but marijuana isn’t all that good of a pain-killer … for some it works well but for others not at all … so this may not be about how much value your friend puts on the gun but how little value she puts on medical marijuana … it does seem your friend is putting the law above all else, and someone you’d want nearby “just in case” …
Yes, I have mentioned this a couple of time, but no one listens to that. From the posts here your would think that one puff and miraculously all her pain will be gone, and that her gun will leap out of her purse and shoot here all by itself at any time.:rolleyes:
Nothing about possession (although possession, I would concede is good evidence of current use).
I think the judge is wrong. When it comes to fundamental rights, the government should not be allowed to make such presumptions. All a medical marijuana card is evidence of is that I am permitted by state law to acquire marijuana in the event my doctor prescribes it for me. It is not proof of current use.
I have refills left on prescription drugs that I no longer take. Having the prescription does not make me a current user.
Mayo Clinic on back pain:
[INDENT] Back pain is one of the most common reasons people go to the doctor or miss work, and it is a leading cause of disability worldwide. Most people have back pain at least once.
… Opioids don’t work well for chronic pain, so your prescription will usually provide less than a week’s worth of pills.
A physical therapist can apply a variety of treatments, such as heat, ultrasound, electrical stimulation and muscle-release techniques, to your back muscles and soft tissues to reduce pain.
As pain improves, the therapist can teach you exercises to increase your flexibility, strengthen your back and abdominal muscles, and improve your posture. Regular use of these techniques can help keep pain from returning. [/INDENT] Emphasis added. I am not a doctor, I don’t know the patient, but there are other treatments besides pot. I don’t object to medical marijuana, I’m just saying. Back pain - Diagnosis and treatment - Mayo Clinic
I just never thought of that.
I’m more surprised that I haven’t read any threads here decrying such a 2nd Amendment-infringing law.
Ok you didn’t give us much information about your friend, but consider she is probably smaller than most males, she can’t defend herself against an attacker (given her back injury), she’s also on a drug(s) that have some street value, and it’s probably well know she has drugs. Each of those factors makes her a target, so after weighting the options the only real way she has to defend herself is with a firearm. And while the odds of her needing to use a gun to defend herself may be small, it does happen, so while you may be comfortable with 18.6 violent crime per 1,000.https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv15.pdf but it appears she is not, and given her position of not being able to defend herself, having drug(s) that do have a street value, she may feel she’s at even a greater risk then you are, and thus would put up with the pain then the risk of being the victim of a violent crime.
Actually, it’s three judges, since it was a US appellate court. The defendant’s attorney said he’d appeal, so stay tuned. And for the record, I agree with you.