GUARANTEEING THE GUN RIGHTS OF MEDICINAL PATIENTS RESTORING SELF-DEFENSE RIGHTS TO OTHERWISE LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS WITH LEGAL MEDICAL PRESCRIPTIONS

MAX McGUIRE

POLICY WHITE PAPER DECEMBER 19, 2019 © 2019 Millennial Policy Center

Millennial Policy Center P.O. Box 372041 Denver, CO 80237

Follow MPC:

@MilPolicyCtr

@MillennialPolicyCenter

Millennial Policy Center

millennial-policy-center Millennial Policy Center Policy Paper December 19 | 2019

GUARANTEEING THE GUN RIGHTS OF MEDICINAL MARIJUANA PATIENTS RESTORING SELF-DEFENSE RIGHTS TO OTHERWISE LAW- ABIDING CITIZENS WITH LEGAL PRESCRIPTIONS

MAX McGUIRE ABOUT THE AUTHOR Max McGuire is a Firearms Policy Fellow at the Millennial Policy Center. He holds a Bachelor’s Degree from Boston College and and a Master’s Degree in Political Science from Villanova University. A current resident of Texas and former resident of Colorado and New Jersey, Max is the Advocacy Director at Shuffling Madness Media as well as the host of the Conservative Daily Podcast. He is regularly called upon by One America News to offer commentary and insights on Second Amendment and firearms policy issues and news.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A special thanks is due to Mr. Jimmy Sengenberger, MPC President and CEO; Dr. Robert Margesson, Regis University professor; Mr. Keith Nobles, National Security Policy Advisor; Mr. Jeff Krump; and Mrs. Michelle Stinnett for their input and time in reviewing and offering suggested revisions for this paper.

ABOUT THE MILLENNIAL POLICY CENTER

The Millennial Policy Center is a research and educational institute (a think tank) dedicated to addressing public policy issues that affect the Millennial Generation (born 1981-1997) and to developing and promoting policy solutions that advance freedom, opportunity, and economic vitality for Millennials throughout the United States.

Our vision is an America which realizes the full potential of Millennials – economic progress and achievement, individual liberty, and full participation in American society – to generate a new era of freedom, opportunity, and prosperity.

In collaboration with our policy advisors and policy fellows, the Center generates and shares knowledge, and it fosters public debate and understanding through various mediums.

For more information please visit our website: WWW.MILLENNIALPOLICYCENTER.ORG EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Restoring Gun Rights to Medical Marijuana Patients

The United States was founded on the idea that all men and women have the natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of their own happiness. The right to life – and specifically the right to self-defense – is paramount in American society. If someone is attacked by an assailant, they have the right to fight back to protect themselves.

Contrary to popular belief, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution doesn’t give Americans the right to self-defense. It merely recognizes a pre-existing, natural right and prohibits government from infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms. Over the years, however, the federal government has imposed restrictions on these self-defense rights. For example, civilians cannot purchase modern, post- 1986 automatic firearms for self-defense. Congress has also passed laws creating entire classes of prohibited persons who, as a result of their actions, have lost the right to keep and bear arms.

Federal law also makes it unlawful to own, purchase, or possess a firearm if an individual “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.” 1 The key phrase here is unlawful user, which ensures that Americans do not lose their right to self-defense simply because they have been legitimately prescribed a controlled substance. This makes sense. Someone who fills a painkiller prescription to treat diagnosed, chronic pain should not automatically be forced to surrender their self-defense rights. If someone is purchasing those same pills illegally on the street to fuel an addiction, then this gun control law would come into play. The law was structured specifically to make sure that no American is forced to sacrifice a natural right in order to treat a diagnosed disease or medical condition. But there is an exception. Under federal law, there is currently no way for a gun owner to legally use medical cannabis products. While Congress has recently passed a carve-out to exempt products derived from industrial plants with minimal- (THC), federal law continues to reject the very concept of medical marijuana.2

This has put American gun owners dealing with diagnosed diseases and conditions in a tough position. They are being forced to choose between treating their pain and protecting their lives. Any gun owner who possesses or uses medical cannabis automatically commits a federal felony, even if they have a legitimate condition and a prescription from a board-certified doctor. Even though America’s opinion of medical marijuana has evolved drastically since it was first banned in the 1930s, the country’s drug and gun laws, written during the sixties and seventies, have not.

The result is that it is technically legal for a gun owner to use cocaine or methamphetamine to treat a condition, but a felony if he or she turns to medical marijuana. Given that all fifty states have now legalized some medical use of the cannabis plant, it is unacceptable that federal law continues to punish gun owners who turn to the drug to treat their diseases or conditions.

This paper will explore the current provision in federal law today, the medically-supported expansion of medicinal cannabis prescriptions in all 50 states, and why the constitutionally-protected right to self- defense should not be abridged because of legally-prescribed medical marijuana use. This paper does not offer an opinion on the debate surrounding marijuana’s legality, nor does it address recreational use.

Page | 1 SECTION ONE

Marijuana and Guns: An Overview of Current Law

The Obama administration became the first in the modern era to take a hands-off approach to medical marijuana law enforcement. While there were some exceptions, the Department of Justice agreed not to prioritize prosecuting medical marijuana users for mere possession. While then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions indicated early in the Trump administration that he wanted to reverse this decision, Congress in 2018 prohibited the Department of Justice from using any appropriated funds to interfere in the “use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana” in states where it is otherwise legal. Absent some other criminal act, medical marijuana users need not fear being prosecuted for simple possession alone.

As helpful as this promised non-enforcement is, it does little to help America’s gun owners who seek to otherwise legally use medical marijuana to treat their legitimate conditions or diseases.

Every state has now legalized medicinal cannabis in some form. Thirty-three states have now legalized medical marijuana. 1 The remaining 17 states have legalized medicinal (CBD) as long as it contains a minimal amount of THC. 3 The consensus – at least among voters and state legislatures around the country – is that the cannabis plant, whether pulled straight from the ground or processed, has a legitimate medicinal use.

Although that statement may seem uncontroversial, the federal government disagrees. Cannabis is currently classified as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 . In order to fall under Schedule I, the attorney general must certify that the substance has a high potential for abuse, is considered dangerous, even when administered under medical supervision, and has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the U.S. That last qualifier is the most important.

The only way the federal government can completely ban a drug is by declaring it has no currently accepted medical use. If a drug is both addictive and dangerous, but has a medical purpose, then it would fall under Schedule II instead. Schedules III, IV, and V are reserved for less addictive and less dangerous drugs.

Today, Schedule I drugs include heroin, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (commonly known as ecstasy), lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), and marijuana, among others. Schedule II, on the other hand, includes drugs like hydrocodone (Vicodin), oxycodone (OxyContin), dextroamphetamine (Adderall), morphine, methamphetamine, and cocaine.

As mentioned, this creates the awkward (at least hypothetical) scenario where a gun owner would be able to legally use prescription cocaine or methamphetamine – both drugs universally understood to be more dangerous and addictive, and less medically useful than cannabis – but would commit a federal felony

1 Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont Washington, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.

Page | 2 for simply ingesting CBD oil with a higher concentration of THC than currently allowed. There is also little evidence to suggest that someone addicted to prescription oxycodone is any less dangerous than a medical marijuana user.

Following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Congress passed the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 to tighten the laws and make it harder for dangerous individuals to acquire weapons. In addition to regulating commercial firearm sales and restricting most mail-order firearms, the GCA outlined four specific ways that someone could lose their gun rights. The bill allowed the government to disarm anyone who:

“(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to marihuana (sic) or any depressant or stimulant drug (as defined in section 201 (v) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) or narcotic drug (as defined in section 4731 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954); or (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.” 4

The legislation listed “marihuana” specifically by name. Over the years, this law has been amended to add additional disqualifiers, such as being dishonorably discharged from the military or being convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. The drug use disqualifier was also eventually rewritten to refer to anyone who unlawfully uses or is addicted to any of the controlled substances banned by the Controlled Substances Act of 1970.

Today, when someone goes to purchase a firearm from a licensed firearms dealer (FFL), they are required to fill out a Form 4473 as part of the background check process. Question 11e asks purchasers if they are an “unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?” 5 Answering this question dishonestly or admitting to trying to buy a gun while an unlawful user of marijuana constitutes a federal crime. There is no way for a medicinal marijuana user to fill out this background check form and try to buy a firearm from a licensed dealer without also committing a crime.

Recently, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives added an additional disclaimer to this question: “Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.” 6

This has created a bit of a paradox. The federal government derives its power to criminalize all cannabis use or possession by claiming there is no medical use for the drug, only to at least tacitly admit on this form that a medicinal purpose exists.

Nevertheless, the combination of these federal laws makes it impossible for a medical marijuana user to legally exercise their natural right to self-defense.

Page | 3

SECTION TWO

Why is Marijuana a Schedule I Drug?

Marijuana was not always classified as a dangerous drug. The history of cannabis in the United States actually predates the American Revolution. The first hemp plants in America are believed to have been planted in 1619 after the English Crown ordered the Virginia Colony to diversify its cash crops. Even George Washington chose to make hemp one of the staple crops on his Mount Vernon plantation. 7 The 1913-14 $10 bill, in addition to being made out of , depicts a Pennsylvania hemp harvest on the reverse side of the note, showing just how important the crop was to the American economy. 8

It was in the early- to mid-1800s, though, that cannabis began to be widely used as a drug in the U... Like cocaine and opiates, it was unregulated at the time and used in a whole host of remedies to treat common ailments. Of course, marijuana was also widely abused for recreational purposes. However, it was not considered as degenerative as cocaine or opiates. Cannabis was described in an 1854 New York Times article as one of the country’s more “fashionable narcotics.” 9

But in the early 1900s, the federal government began to crack down on the sale of the drug. In 1906, Congress passed the Pure Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act , which required that drugs have their contents clearly labeled on the packaging. In this legislation, cannabis was regulated as a “poison.”

As the Temperance movement spread in the U.S., cannabis was formally identified as a habit-forming drug and specifically targeted. The Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) was founded in 1930, and Henry J. Anslinger was named the inaugural Commissioner. Anslinger pledged to outlaw all recreational drug use. Ironically, it was Anslinger’s uncle, Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, whose signature appears on the previously-mentioned $10 bills that celebrated the American . The FBN’s 1934 anti- marijuana campaign sought to convince the public that marijuana was a “addictive drug” that produced “insanity, criminality, and death.” 10 Anslinger himself infamously warned that “no one knows, when he places a marijuana cigarette to his lips, whether he will become a joyous reveller in a musical heaven, a mad insensate, a calm philosopher, or a murderer.” 11

With the passage of the Marihuana Tax Act in 1937, recreational marijuana use was officially outlawed. The regulations placed on medicinal marijuana were so burdensome, though, that it became next to impossible for patients to obtain the drug either. When the Pure Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act was amended in 1938, marijuana was formally classified as a “dangerous drug.” 12

It is worth noting that even while marijuana was de facto banned in the U.S. from 1937 to 1970, the federal government still admitted the drug had a medical use. It was only with the passage of the Controlled Substances Act , and its implementation by the Nixon administration, that this position was changed.

After Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act , President Richard Nixon convened a commission to study how marijuana should be classified.

Page | 4 Nixon appointed Pennsylvania Governor Raymond P. Shafer to head up the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse , which was charged with studying whether the Schedule I classification was justified. Despite the appearance of impartiality, however, Nixon was already staunchly against legalization.

Richard Nixon was infamous for taping all of his Oval Office conversations. While discussing the marijuana commission, Nixon told Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman that he wanted the commission to recommend that marijuana be classified as a Schedule I drug:

Nixon: "Now, this is one thing I want. I want a Goddamn strong statement on marijuana. Can I get that out of this sonofabitching, uh, Domestic Council?"

Haldeman: "Sure."

Nixon: "I mean one on marijuana that just tears the ass out of them. I see another thing in the news summary this morning about it. You know it's a funny thing, every one of the bastards that are out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish. What the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob, what is the matter with them? I suppose it's because most of them are psychiatrists, you know, there's so many, all the greatest psychiatrists are Jewish. By God we are going to hit the marijuana thing, and I want to hit it right square in the puss, I want to find a way of putting more on that. More [unintelligible] work with somebody else with this."

Haldeman: "Mm hmm, yep."

Nixon: "I want to hit it, against legalizing and all that sort of thing." 13

The Shafer Commission ultimately delivered a “strong statement,” but not the one that Nixon wanted. Not only did the Commission recommend against Schedule I classification, but they argued that marijuana, being far less dangerous than other abused drugs, should be decriminalized all together. The Commission disputed the administration’s claim that marijuana was dangerous:

“A careful search of the literature and testimony of the nation's health officials has not revealed a single human fatality in the United States proven to have resulted solely from ingestion of marihuana. Experiments with the drug in monkeys demonstrated that the dose required for overdose death was enormous and for all practical purposes unachievable by humans smoking marihuana. This is in marked contrast to other substances in common use, most notably alcohol and barbiturate sleeping pills.” 14

The Commission also directly disputed the notion that cannabis is an addictive drug with a high likelihood for continued abuse.

“Recent data suggest that some of this confusion may be the result of a fairly widespread misconception about the addiction potential of marihuana. To the extent that persons believe marihuana users are physically dependent on the drug, they may assume that, like the heroin user, the marihuana user commits his offenses in order to support what is perceived as a drug habit; and that, like the heroin model, offenses are committed more often in the desperate attempt to obtain the drug rather than under its influence following use. There is no evidence that this is the case, even for those who use the drug heavily.”

The commission was silent, however, on the drug’s medical utility. Instead of making a case for rescheduling, the commission advocated decriminalizing marijuana entirely and treating marijuana abuse through a healthcare approach, not through the criminal justice system.

Page | 5 While the Commission found that marijuana failed to meet two of the requirements to be classified as Schedule I, it did not have the final say in the matter. The Controlled Substances Act gave the final classification power to the attorney general. Not surprisingly, Attorney General John Mitchell — a close Nixon ally — ignored the commission’s findings and kept marijuana classified as a Schedule I drug, where it has stayed to this day.

SECTION THREE

Marijuana’s Medicinal Utility

Medical cannabis has been traced back to all of the major historical empires. The ancient Greeks, for example, used cannabis to dress battle wounds, treat nosebleeds, and even expel tapeworms. 15 The Arabs used cannabis for its “diuretic, anti-emetic, anti-epileptic, anti-inflammatory, painkilling and antipyretic properties.” 16 Historical records show that nearly every society that knew about cannabis used it to treat a whole host of conditions and diseases. But beyond merely the ancient remedies, mankind has known for centuries that cannabis is an anti-convulsant. Even before modern medicine could define or explain seizure disorders, cannabis was recognized as a treatment method. 17

The U.S. government, however, contends that cannabis has no medical usefulness. The irony is that once the federal government declares that a drug has “no currently accepted medical use,” it is incredibly difficult for medical researchers to get the proper authorization to conduct studies to prove the government wrong. And when researchers, either in the U.S. or abroad, do conclude that marijuana has a legitimate medical purpose, the government has simply been able to say that the findings did not constitute a consensus.

Like the Shafer Commission, today’s arguments over marijuana laws tend to focus on a cost-benefit analysis. Policymakers say that any medical utility must be balanced against the harm that the drug does to our society.

However, the Controlled Substances Act does not allow for such interest balancing when scheduling a drug. If a drug is found to have any currently accepted medical use in treatment, then it cannot be classified as a Schedule I substance. Even if a drug is seen to cause tremendous harm to American society, if it has a medical utility, then it cannot be banned outright.

Many other opponents also argue that even if marijuana has an accepted medical use, there are other drugs that can fill the same niche. Therefore, they claim that it is unnecessary to legalize or deregulate medicinal marijuana because there are other drugs available to patients. Still, the Controlled Substances Act does not allow the federal government to make these sorts of balancing decisions, and the argument itself admits that there is a medical utility to the drug. Beyond that, though, medical researchers have found that for many patients, medicinal marijuana and drugs “might offer broad-spectrum relief not found in any other single medication.” 18 Additionally, other researchers have found that, when used in combination with opioid medications, medicinal marijuana was seen augmenting the effects of opioid painkillers, which could allow doctors to prescribe “opioid treatment[s] at lower doses with fewer side effects.” 19

Page | 6 There is no doubt that medical cannabis is used today across the country to alleviate patients’ symptoms or treat disease. While the record is full of recreational abusers using the medical marijuana system to obtain drugs, there is no doubt that legitimate patients rely on the drug to treat their conditions and diseases. The challenges facing researchers is how to best quantify the drugs medical usefulness and identify which specific diseases and symptoms are best treated with medical marijuana and cannabinoid agents. 20

Since the medicinal utility of marijuana is not recognized at the federal level, states have been left to regulate what specific diseases and conditions qualify for cannabis treatment. While the list of approved conditions vary from state to state, the list itself is long. States and medical researchers have found that medical marijuana and its derivatives are useful in treating a broad range of conditions and diseases, including (but not limited to) Alzheimer’s disease 21 , HIV/AIDS 22 , amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gherig’s Disease) 23 , cancer 24 , Inflammatory bowel disease (i.e. Chron’s disease, ulcerative colitis) 25 , glaucoma 26 , multiple sclerosis 27 , Parkinson’s disease 28 , post-traumatic stress disorder 29 , eating disorders like anorexia 30 , severe or chronic pain 31 , and seizure disorders (i.e. epilepsy) 32 .

That list is not exhaustive, and not all states that have legalized medical marijuana have approved the drug to treat all of those conditions and diseases. Nevertheless, it is getting increasingly difficult to justify the Federal government’s position that marijuana has “no currently accepted medical use.”

Not all states make the data in their medical marijuana registries available to the public. But by taking the data that is available and applying the average patient saturation metrics, researchers estimate that there are between 3.1 million and 3.7 million current medical cannabis patients in the United States. 33 That number continues to grow as the medical marijuana industry expands. The private sector is rising to meet this demand, with publicly traded marijuana companies now making up a combined total market capitalization of over $44.5 billion.

By almost all definitions, the cannabis plant is widely accepted to have at least some medical use. However, because the federal government refuses to re-examine the drug’s Schedule I classification, it remains a federal crime to possess even a small amount of medical marijuana for personal use.

SECTION FOUR

The Risk to Gun Owners

As explained, since marijuana remains illegal at the federal level, even if the Department of Justice agrees not to prosecute medical marijuana users, it remains a felony for gun owners to use cannabis. This is true at the federal level, as well as in most states.

This puts gun owners in the unfortunate position of having to choose between their right to self- defense and their right to receive medical treatment. That is a decision that no American should be forced to make.

Plenty of gun owners use marijuana medicinally, and there is no rush to surrender their firearm collections to the government. Given the Department of Justice’s current hands-off stance, many have

Page | 7 concluded that the chance of being prosecuted is low enough to risk it. It gets more complicated, however, in states that maintain both gun owner and medical marijuana registries.

In Hawaii, all gun owners are required to register with the state government. The same applies to medical marijuana prescription holders. Any person who appears on both registries is technically breaking the law.

In late-2017, the Honolulu Police Department sent letters to 30 gun permit holders instructing them to relinquish their weapons. “Your medical marijuana use disqualifies you from ownership of firearms and ammunition,” the letter informed recipients. “If you currently own or have any firearms, you have 30 days upon receipt of this letter to voluntarily surrender your firearms, permit, and ammunition to the Honolulu Police Department (HPD) or otherwise transfer ownership. A medical doctor's clearance letter is required for any future firearms applications or return of firearms from HPD evidence." 34

After public backlash, and two gun owners voluntarily surrendering their firearms, the Police Chief reversed course and claimed the letters were sent out “in error.”

“It is not illegal to possess the ones you already have,” Chief Susan Ballard explained. “Merely having a medical marijuana card doesn’t mean you’re using marijuana. We can’t prove you’re using marijuana. Our practice of having them turn in their firearms was incorrect.” 35

Again, the solution to antiquated laws coming into conflict with modern medicine is to take a selectively hands-off approach to law enforcement. The Honolulu Police Department admits that these gun owners are likely breaking the law, but their solution is to ignore it.

Despite HPD’s claim that being included in the marijuana registry doesn’t constitute evidence of drug use, Chief Ballard continues to deny new firearm permits to applicants whose names appear in the medical marijuana registry. While the Department has promised not to go after current gun owners who have been prescribed medical marijuana, it is refusing to allow any current medical marijuana card holders to purchase their first guns.

When Pennsylvania first legalized medical marijuana, state regulators were preparing to roll out a similar regulation. Under their original proposed regulation, the medical marijuana registry would be made available to the Pennsylvania State Police and the agents conducting firearm purchase/transfer background checks through the Pennsylvania Instant Check System. Any medical marijuana user who sought to purchase a firearm would fail the background check process. 36

After public outcry, the regulators reversed course and announced that these health records would no longer be made available to State Police. 37 Again, they recognized that their decades-old gun laws conflicted with the newly-legalized medical marijuana, but instead of rectifying this conflict, chose to instead block police from accessing the registry. While this will make it more complicated for arresting officers to determine whether a suspect possesses legal or illegal marijuana, it prevents the state from blocking medical marijuana card holders from purchasing firearms.

Fifteen states require gun owners or purchasers to register themselves, or their firearms, with the state, which theoretically gives them the ability to cross reference their databases and disarm medical

Page | 8 marijuana users. 2 Beyond just the states with gun or gun owner registration, there are also an estimated 18.86 million Americans who possess state licenses to carry concealed firearms. Twenty states also either wholly or partially conduct the background checks on gun purchases or transfers occurring within their state, giving them the power to block gun sales to medical marijuana card holders.

We have already seen how, where Police Departments have the ability to cross reference gun and medical marijuana databases, they have used that power to target gun owners. When they were caught and faced public backlash, their solution was to promise not to use the databases in those ways.

The truth remains, however, that as long as states register guns/gun owners and medical marijuana users, and state law prohibits medical marijuana users from owning firearms, there will always be a risk that those databases will be used to enforce the laws as-written.

CONCLUSION

Restoring Gun Rights: A Path Forward

While the cannabis plant has historically been used for medical purposes, the modern medicinal marijuana movement in the United States is relatively new. Even California, the first state to legalize medical marijuana, only did so in 1996. It was only in the past year that the 50 th state legalized medical cannabis products.

Now that all 50 states have acknowledged that the cannabis plant possesses at least some medical properties, these medical marijuana systems are coming into conflict with decades-old gun and marijuana laws that were written during a time when the very idea of medical marijuana was mocked.

Similarly, it is absurd the federal government still contends that cannabis “has no currently accepted medical use,” considering nationwide state-level medical cannabis legalization, the ever-growing pile of medical research claiming otherwise, and the fact that the Hemp Farming Act of 2018 (now law) admits that it is possible to process the cannabis plant and produce medicine. Marijuana’s continued classification as a Schedule I drug is indefensible.

Today, we live in a world where it is legal for a gun owner to use cocaine or methamphetamine under a doctor’s supervision, but a felony to use medical cannabis to treat their disease or condition.

We have seen local, state, and federal authorities all attempt to enforce the antiquated War on Drugs-era gun laws against otherwise lawful medical marijuana users. Every time, these enforcement efforts are met with bipartisan condemnation and the Departments involved are pressured to promise a new policy of non-enforcement.

Both sides of the aisle agree that strict enforcement of drug and gun laws against bona fide medical marijuana patients is unconscionable. Seeking out widely accepted medicines to treat diseases and conditions should not force someone to surrender their natural right to self-defense. But neither party seems willing to right this wrong and change the law to ensure that Americans’ gun and patient rights

2 California, New Jersey, New York, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Maryland, Illinois, District of Columbia

Page | 9 are protected.

Gun owners should not be forced to choose between their individual right to self-defense and their ability to treat their diseases and conditions using the medicine of their choice.

If the attorney general is not willing to admit what is plain to see – that marijuana has medicinal utility – then Congress must act to protect gun owners and otherwise lawful users of medical cannabis. This can be accomplished by passing legislation to amend the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 and formally acknowledge that marijuana has a “currently accepted medical use,” thus prohibiting its classification as a Schedule I drug. Such a route would provide permanent protection for legitimate medical marijuana users, while allowing the government to continue to prosecute the recreational drug trade. Congress must also amend the Gun Control Act of 1968 to remove medicinal marijuana use as a firearm ownership disqualifier.

The same must be done at the state and local levels as well. Any law that criminalizes the use of a legitimate prescribed medication and the simultaneous ownership of firearms violates the Bill of Rights and ought to be abolished.

This is also not an issue of whether one of the nation’s 50 states should continue to permit medicinal cannabis use; nor is it about recreational marijuana, which is legal in some states. Simply put, no American should be forced to choose between exercising their natural right to keep and bear arms and preserving access to the medicines that they believe is best suited to treat their diseases and conditions.

Contact tthehe Millennial Policy Center 383838

To contact the Millennial Policy Center, please reach President and CEO Jimmy Sengenberger at 720- 316-1072 (office) or [email protected] (email).

Page | 10

ENDNOTES

1 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922/ . 2 Public Law 115-334, pg. 420, https://www.congress.gov/115/plaws/publ334/PLAW-115publ334.pdf/ . 3 The Gun Control Act of 1968, PUBLIC LAW 90-618-OCT. 22, 1968, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf#page=1/ . 4 ibid. 5 ATF Form 4473, https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form- 53009/download/ . 6 ibid. 7 Brakkton Booker. “After Centuries, Hemp Makes A Comeback At George Washington’s Home.” NPR , 23 Aug 2018, https://www.npr.org/2018/08/23/640662989/after-centuries-hemp-makes-a-comeback-at-george-washingtons-home/ . 8 Gene Hessler. The Comprehensive Catalog of US Paper Money, All United States Federal Currency Since 1812 . Sixth Edition, ppg. 173-176. 9 “Our Fashionable Narcotics,” New York Times , 10 Jan 1854, archived on https://www.nytimes.com/1854/01/10/archives/our-fashionable-narcotics.html/ . 10 Richert, Lucas. Break On Through: Radical Psychiatry and the American Counterculture . MIT Press, 13 Sept 2019. 11 ibid. 12 “Our Fashionable Narcotics.” New York Times , January 10, 1854, archived on https://www.nytimes.com/1854/01/10/archives/our-fashionable-narcotics.html/ . 13 Richert, 135. 14 Decriminalization of Marihuana: Hearings Before the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control . House of Representatives, Ninety-fifth Congress, First Session, March 14, 15, and 16, 1977, page 325, https://books.google.com/books?id=T0AYXzMBopwC&pg=PA325&lpg=PA325/ . 15 James L. Butrica (2002). “The Medical Use of Cannabis Among the Greeks and Romans.” Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics , 2:2, 51-70. 16 Indalecio Lozano PhD (2001) The Therapeutic Use of (L.) in Arabic Medicine, Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics, 1:1, 63-70 17 Lozano; also Alsasua del Valle. “Implication of in Neurological Diseases.” Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology 26 , no. 4-6 (2006): 579-91. 18 J.E. Joy, S.J. Watson, and J.A. Benson. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base . National Academy Press, 1999. 19 Donald Abrams, et al. “Cannabinoid-opioid interaction in chronic pain.” Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics (2011): 844-851. 20 Mary Barna Bridgeman and Daniel T. Abazia. “Medicinal Cannabis: History, Pharmacology, And Implications for the Acute Care Setting.” P & T: a peer-reviewed journal for formulary management vol. 42,3 (2017), 180-188. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5312634/ . 21 (1) S. Walther, et al., “Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol for Nighttime Agitation in Severe Dementia,” Psychopharmacology (Berl) 185, no. 4 (2006): 524-8; G. Esposito, et al., “The Marijuana Component Cannabidiol Inhibits BetaAmyloid-Induced Tau Protein Hyperphosphorylation Through Wnt/betacatenin Pathway Rescue in PC12 Cells,” Journal of Molecular Medicine 84, no. 3 (2006): 253-8; A. Shelef, Y. Barak, U. Berger, D. Paleacu, S. Tadger, I. Plopsky, and Y. Baruch, “Safety and efficacy of medical cannabis oil for behavioral and psychological symptom of dementia: An open label, add-on, pilot study,” Journal of Alzheimer's Disease (2016) 51: 15-19. 22 Donald Abrams, et al., “Short-Term Effects of Cannabinoids on Patients With HIV-1 Infection: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial,” Annals of Internal Medicine 139, no. 4 (2003): 258-266; B.D. de Jong, et al., “Marijuana Use and Its Association With Adherence to Antiretroviral Therapy Among HIV-Infected Persons With Moderate to Severe Nausea,” Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 38, no. 1 (2005): 43- 6; M. Haney, et al., “Dronabinol and Marijuana in HIV-Positive Marijuana Smokers. Caloric Intake, Mood, and Sleep,” Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 45, no. 5 (2007): 545-54. 23 Gregory T. Carter and Bill S. Rosen, “Marijuana in the Management of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis,” American

Page | 11

Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care 18, no. 4 (2001): 264-69; E. de Lago, J. Fernández-Ruiz, “Cannabinoids and Neuroprotection in Motor- Related Disorders,” CNS and Neurological Disorders — Drug Targets 6, no. 6 (2007): 377- 87; Dagmar Amtmann, et al., “Survey of Cannabis Use in Patients With Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis,” American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, March-April 2004. 24 Vincent Vinciguerra, et al., “Inhalation Marijuana as an Antiemetic for Cancer Chemotherapy,” New York State Journal of Medicine (October 1988); Richard Musty and Rita Rossi, “Effects of Smoked Cannabis and Oral ∆9- Tetrahydrocannabinol on Nausea and Emesis After Cancer Chemotherapy: A Review of State Clinical Trials,” Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics 1, no. 1 (2001): 43-56; K. Nelson, et al., “A Phase II Study of Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol for Appetite Stimulation in Cancer-Associated Anorexia,” Journal of Palliative Care 10, no. 1 (1994): 14-8; Kramer, Joan L. (2015). “Medical Marijuana for Cancer,” CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 65(2): 109-122; Marta Duran, et al., "Preliminary efficacy and safety of an oromucosal standardized cannabis extract in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting," Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 70, no. 4 (2010): 656-63; Manuel Guzman, “Cannabinoids: Potential Anticancer Agents,” Nature Reviews 3 (2003): 745-766; Kramer, Joan L. (2015). “Medical Marijuana for Cancer,” CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 65(2): 109-122; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The health and cannabinoids: The current state of evidence and recommendations for research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 25 Adi Lahate, et al., “Impact of Cannabis Treatment on the Quality of Life, Weight, and Clinical Disease Activity in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients: A Pilot Prospective Study,” Digestion (2012); Timna Naftali, et al., “Cannabis induces a clinical response in patients with Crohn's disease: A prospective placebo-controlled study,” Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (2013) 26 Joy, et. al., 174. 27 Jody Corey-Bloom, et al., "Smoked cannabis for spasticity in multiple sclerosis: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial," Canadian Medical Association Journal 184, no. 10 (2012): 1143–1150.; J. Zajicek, et al., "Multiple Sclerosis and Extract of Cannabis: Results of the MUSEC trial," Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry 83: no 11 (2012): 1125-1132.;A Novotna, et al., "A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel- group, enriched-design study of nabiximols* (Sativex(®)), as add-on therapy, in subjects with refractory spasticity caused by multiple sclerosis," European Journal of Neurology 18, no. 9 (2011): 1122-1131. 28 Joy et. al., 167-170 29 Torsten Passie, et al., “Mitigation of post-traumatic stress symptom by Cannabis resin: A review of the clinical and neurobiological evidence,” Drug Testing and Analysis (2012): 649-659; George R. Greer M.D., Charles S. Grob M.D. & Adam L. Halberstadt Ph.D. (2014). “PTSD Symptom Reports of Patients Evaluated for the New Mexico Medical Cannabis Program,” Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 46(1): 73-77. 30 Nelson, et al. 31 Wilsey B, Marcotte TD, Deutsch R, Zhao H, Prasad H, Phan A. (2016). “An Exploratory Human Laboratory Experiment Evaluating Vaporized Cannabis in the Treatment of Neuropathic Pain from Spinal Cord Injury and Disease.” J Pain. 2016 Jun 7. pii: S1526-5900(16)30072-4. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2016.05.010.; Donald Abrams, et al., "Cannabinoid-opioid interaction in chronic pain,"; Johnson, Jeremy R., Burnell-Nugent, Mary, Lossignol, Dominique, GanaeMotan, Elena Doina, Potts, Richard & Fallon, Marie T. (2010). “Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel-Group Study of the Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of THC:CBD Extract and THC extract in Patients with Intractable Cancer-Related Pain,” Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 39(2): 167-179. 32 M. Hausman-Kedem M, et al., “Efficacy of CBD-enriched medical cannabis for treatment of refractory epilepsy in children and adolescents - An observational, longitudinal study.” Brain and Development. Apr 16, 2018; Tzadok, M., et al. “CBD-enriched medical cannabis for intractable pediatric epilepsy: The current Israeli experience.” Seizure, 35:41 (2016); 33 “Medical Marijuana Patient Numbers.” . 10 July 2019, https://www.mpp.org/issues/medical- marijuana/state-by-state-medical-marijuana-laws/medical-marijuana-patient-numbers/ ; “U.S. Medical Cannabis Patients.” New Frontier Data. 2019, https://newfrontierdata.com/marijuana-insights/u-s-medical-cannabis-patients/ . 34 Letter from the Honolulu Police Department . 13 Nov 2017, archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20191003100857/https://d3atagt0rnqk7k.cloudfront.net/wp- content/uploads/2017/11/28114137/Honolulu-Police-Letter.jpg/ . 35 Kristen Consillio. “HPD in error over cannabis patients with guns, chief says.” Honolulu Star Advertiser , 7 Dec 2017, https://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/12/07/hawaii-news/hpd-in-error-over-cannabis-patients-with-guns-chief- says/?HSA=ef7ce414e218674ae3b48ae1e6ab26026109f482/.

Page | 12

36 Sam Wood. “Patients must choose: Medical marijuana or gun ownership.” The Philadelphia Enquirer , 28 Dec 2017, https://www.inquirer.com/philly/business/cannabis/patients-medical-marijuana-2nd-amendment-rights-gun- 20171228.html/ . 37 Sam Wood. “Pa. regulators reverse course; Medical marijuana won't stop patient gun purchases.” The Philadelphia Enquirer , 12 Jan 2018, https://www.inquirer.com/philly/business/cannabis/pa-medical-marijuana-law-enforcement- stop-patient-gun-purchases-feds-legalize-20180112.html/ . 38 The Millennial Policy Center is a policy research, development, and education program (a think tank) whose mission is to address public policy issues that affect the Millennial Generation (born between and including the years 1981 to 1998) and to develop and present policy solutions that advance the constitutional values of freedom, opportunity, and economic vitality for Millennials throughout the United States. Our website is www.MillennialPolicyCenter.org .

Page | 13 WWW.MILLENNIALPOLICYCENTER.ORG