Get and Rx for marijuana lose your guns/rights.

[Augustin]

[/COLOR]

Is it legal for police to maintain records that contain confidential health information?

Unfortunately, YES, it might be.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 is a Federal law that supposedly protects the privacy of a patient's medical records. Before a health acre provider can release any information, they must have a signed disclosure from the affected before giving out any information on provided health care to anyone, including parents.

The problem is that there are many huge gaping holes in the law. It allows information to be accessed by to public officials responding to a bioterrorism threat or other public health emergency, and to local, state, and Federal law enforcement, and to others.

There is along list on the HIPPA forms that all doctor offices give you (by law) when you make an appointment.

Here is the list:

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/faq/disclosures_for_law_enforcement_purposes/505.html

 

[MKEgal]

But your Rx for everything else is perfectly legal.

Because it's for a legal prescription drug, not something that's illegal.
The only legal things about marijuana (per federal law) are the oil and fiber.

Bullock told Holder said he's willing to work with the U.S. Justice Department staff "on exploring a reasonable solution to the problems created by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives letter." The goal, he said, is to find an approach that works for the Montana and the other states and the District of Columbia that have legalized medical marijuana. "This would be much better than the type of unilateral proclamation represented by the ATF letter, which was issued without any advance notice or discussion with the elected officials...

1 - The reasonable solution (or the "approach that works") is to petition to get the federal law changed, and marijuana approved by the FDA as a legal drug, so it can actually be prescribed. Two problems I see are potency & purity, something guaranteed for normal drugs, and not available for leaves.
Meanwhile, people who use illegal drugs (as defined in federal law) lose their firearm rights. At least Illinois is being up-front about this, telling people who apply for their 'medical marijuana' card that anyone at their address who has a FOID will have it cancelled & the guns confiscated (if they don't sell them first).
I'm curious as to how long their drug use history can be used against them. If you're convicted yesterday, but today claim that you no longer use, are you no longer a prohibited person? Or does it take a month, a year, 5 years...?

2 - For once, the problems are not created by the ATF, they're enforcing federal law. And since when do they run their ideas past governors or AG's?

 

[countryclubjoe]

Obamacare will stripe Americans of privacy and even the most common prescribed drugs will cause citizens to lose their drivers licenses and oh yes, no more owning fire arms for you citizens taking ambien to get a good nights rest...
My .02

Regards
CCJ

 

[OC for ME]

Is it legal for police to maintain records that contain confidential health information?

No this right here is funny, I don't care who you are.

 

[Grim_Night]

Someone above mentioned Ambien (Zolpidem) with a stunning array of side effects, contraindications and risk factors. Any use beyond intermittent short-term is risky abuse.

I have taken the stuff on a nightly basis because I suffer from chronic insomnia due to my life long disability. The ONLY problems I developed was a tolerance to the medication and dependance on the medication. Once the tolerance had been developed, I needed to keep taking it even though I was getting no benefits due to my body requiring it just to feel "normal". I finally just said the hell with it and quit cold turkey. Sleeping for me at that point was worse then before I started taking the medication. Now, I take it again but only once in a blue moon when I absolutely need it in order to fall asleep when all other methods have failed.

Though I did say I only had 2 problems while taking the stuff, there was a 3rd issue that cropped up once in a while... I would get up in the middle of the night and raid the fridge and then the next morning, I would wonder where the hell the food went (usually leftovers from the previous night) lol.

 

[Grim_Night]

Yep, tolerance and dependence are listed.

I am amazed by how many here so easily claim victim and disabled status.

I'm 36 and walk with a cane because I suffer from osteoarthritis in most of my body... I have other issues I won't get into here but trust me, I don't like the "disabled" title at all but I can't really do a thing about it...

 

[Cavalryman]

I don't see any big quandary. The Sheriff is a state agency, not Federal. If medical marijuana is legal under the state's laws, the state agencies, including the Sheriff and all other LEOs should go with the state law.

And in Oregon both the Oregon Court of Appeals and the Oregon Supreme Court didn't seem to be a quandary when they ruled in favor of Cynthia Willis.

http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2012/01/supreme_court_oregon_marijuana_patients_can_keep_t.php

Sheriff Winters is a disgusting BOOTLICKER, in my opinion.

The sheriff is not empowered or expected to enforce only state law. It is his sworn duty to uphold all laws. Personally, I would be unwilling to sign off on a permit that essentially says I give someone permission to violate federal law.

 

[Cavalryman]

Because it's for a legal prescription drug, not something that's illegal.
The only legal things about marijuana (per federal law) are the oil and fiber.


1 - The reasonable solution (or the "approach that works") is to petition to get the federal law changed, and marijuana approved by the FDA as a legal drug, so it can actually be prescribed. Two problems I see are potency & purity, something guaranteed for normal drugs, and not available for leaves.
Meanwhile, people who use illegal drugs (as defined in federal law) lose their firearm rights. At least Illinois is being up-front about this, telling people who apply for their 'medical marijuana' card that anyone at their address who has a FOID will have it cancelled & the guns confiscated (if they don't sell them first).
I'm curious as to how long their drug use history can be used against them. If you're convicted yesterday, but today claim that you no longer use, are you no longer a prohibited person? Or does it take a month, a year, 5 years...?

2 - For once, the problems are not created by the ATF, they're enforcing federal law. And since when do they run their ideas past governors or AG's?

Exactly!

 

[davidmcbeth]

Lets look at Portugal - country that voided ALL drug laws

From: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/portugal

The estimated rate of private gun ownership (both licit and illicit) in Portugal is 24.222 firearms per 100 people
The estimated total number of guns (both licit and illicit) held by civilians in Portugal is 2,600,0001
In Portugal, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is 2010: 1.77

In Portugal, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is
2010: 0.4814
2009: 0.2814 8
2008: 0.41
2007: 0.33
2006: 0.88
2005: 0.6
2004: 0.7
2003: 0.5414 8
2002: 0.6514
2001: 0.61
2000: 0.38
1999: 0.6
1998: 0.69
1997: 1.2712
1996: 1.31
1995: 1.33


Looking pretty gooood! Compare to USA..

The estimated rate of private gun ownership (both licit and illicit) in the United States is 101.052 3 1 firearms per 100 people
In the United States, the number of rifles in civilian possession is reported to be 110,000,0002

In the United States, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is
2011: 3.618
2010: 3.5919 20
2009: 3.7519 21 20
2008: 4.01
2007: 4.19
2006: 4.29
2005: 4.18
2004: 3.97
2003: 4.11
2002: 4.1119 26
2001: 3.98
2000: 3.8419
1999: 3.8819 22
1998: 3.3722
1993: 7.0727

Strong anti-drug laws = more homicides???? Something to examine?

I think many will agree that many of the deaths are gang members shooting gang members (something 99.9999% of people really could not give a hoot about)....

 

[sudden valley gunner]

The sheriff is not empowered or expected to enforce only state law. It is his sworn duty to uphold all laws. Personally, I would be unwilling to sign off on a permit that essentially says I give someone permission to violate federal law.

Their "empowerment" has nothing to do with anything. They are not federal agents and should uphold state law over federal law or resign.

 

[Freedom1Man]

Their "empowerment" has nothing to do with anything. They are not federal agents and should uphold state law over federal law or resign.

So, I'll see your name on the election roster in your county, correct?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

So, I'll see your name on the election roster in your county, correct?

Nope.

 

[Cavalryman]

Their "empowerment" has nothing to do with anything. They are not federal agents and should uphold state law over federal law or resign.

That is your opinion, but it does not square with the legal facts.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

That is your opinion, but it does not square with the legal facts.

Not just opinion, there is no obligation for Sheriffs to uphold federal law.

 

[hal5000]

Assumption of Stupidity

I guess they assume that this individual is going to get high and go out to the range and I guess at the same time he will go out and have few beers to help relax himself. Apparently the future crimes detectives are hard at work.

 

[Freedom1Man]

I guess they assume that this individual is going to get high and go out to the range and I guess at the same time he will go out and have few beers to help relax himself. Apparently the future crimes detectives are hard at work.

And no crystal balls in sight even.

 

[Cavalryman]

Not just opinion, there is no obligation for Sheriffs to uphold federal law.

Can you cite a court ruling to that effect?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Can you cite a court ruling to that effect?

Can you cite a court ruling they are obligated to uphold federal law as non federal agents?

Sheriff's are elected officials and public employees, their powers have to be authorized by the people they govern. If the people don't authorize it, it isn't there, so can you cite law/consitution where sheriffs are obligated to uphold federal law?

See Nightmares post.

Or my own state constititution article 1 section 1.

SECTION 1 POLITICAL POWER.
All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Can you cite a court ruling to that effect?

I'd rather talk about the law and constitution without having to rely on oligarchs in black robes, since law and the constitution is actually very easy to understand.....yet there still is this case...

Supreme Court case Printz v. U.S.
“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State’s officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed. It is so ordered.”

 

[Cavalryman]

I'd rather talk about the law and constitution without having to rely on oligarchs in black robes, since law and the constitution is actually very easy to understand.....yet there still is this case...

Supreme Court case Printz v. U.S.
“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State’s officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed. It is so ordered.”

While this ruling does raise some interesting points, it applies specifically to a "regulatory program" as opposed to a law. I have not been able to find anything to indicate that local law enforcement agencies are allowed to just decide not to enforce federal laws.