Yes. The FDA has approved multiple synthetic versions of marijuana’s primary active compound, THC, at least one of which is even prescribed by the Department of Defense to active-duty service members despite the risk of significant career disruption. These synthetic drugs are associated with more negative effects than the natural version, however, while also lacking the beneficial “entourage effect” of compounds that are found only in the plant itself.

Originally signed into law as part of the Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 US Code §922(g)(3) bars firearm possession by “an unlawful user” of any controlled substance and 18 US Code §924(a)(8) allows for a penalty of up to 15 years in prison. There is no exemption for those who obey the laws of their state, and the most recent Department of Justice guidelines specify that “possession of a medical marijuana user card is enough to establish an inference of current use” (The DOJ recently removed the live version of this memo, which concerned how to define “current use” of drugs generally, while the ATF proposes softening its position—it may soon no longer deem anyone who possessed a card up to 12 months prior a "current user," but the risk to active and/or more recent patients would remain).

Though Congress passed a law in 2014 that was intended to “prevent the Department from wasting its limited law enforcement resources on...medical marijuana patients,” the DOJ initially insisted on continuing to do so. It was forced to stop prosecuting individuals for state-legal medicinal cannabis possession after being reprimanded by the measure’s bipartisan authors, but it has remained committed to destroying their lives for otherwise legal firearm ownership.

Every purchaser of a firearm from a federally licensed dealer must attest that they are not “an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana” and is warned that “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.” A current patient who answers truthfully would be prevented from obtaining a gun, but this is the only scenario in which unwitting people are spared from becoming instant felons. Those who buy from a private seller are not presented with any warning, nor are those who already own a firearm (or merely live with a person who does) and get a cannabis license later.

No. Around 200,000 people are arrested each year for simple marijuana possession alone, and again, the Department of Justice (under President Obama no less) specifically tried to continue prosecuting state-legal cannabis patients even after Congress asked it to stop. Laws that criminalize the mere possession of items or substances could have been drafted only as sentencing enhancements to "real crimes," but they are intended specifically to make people “real criminals” all on their own. This intention is then dutifully carried out by police and prosecutors whose careers depend on racking up as many arrests and convictions as possible, and it is delusional to assume they would show mercy to someone violating federal gun laws. Regardless of the sentence imposed, anyone convicted is a felon for life and permanently loses their right to possess a firearm.

It affects every American. The criminalization of victimless activity fosters a disrespect for the law that fuels actual crime, and in a more direct sense it harms everyone who is deterred from peaceable conduct that they have a natural right to engage in. While there doesn’t appear to be a statistical breakdown regarding medicinal cannabis, roughly 600 people a year are eventually convicted of firearm possession while being an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance, with countless more arrested and/or prosecuted. An arrest by itself is degrading and disruptive, generally becomes part of one’s publicly searchable criminal record, and often results in jail time even if charges are later dropped. Depending on one’s personal and employment circumstances, it can be life-ruining.

Most notably, by asserting a seemingly unlimited license to designate anyone “unvirtuous” or “dangerous” and revoke their constitutional rights on that basis. When then-Florida Commissioner of Agriculture (and current state Democratic Party chair) Nikki Fried sued the Biden Justice Department over this very issue, it countered that “a historical tradition exists of regulations that restrict or prohibit firearms possession by those whose possession of firearms the government deems dangerous" and pointed to the past disarmament of Catholics, Native Americans, and panhandlers. So if “dangerousness” need not be based on actual dangerous behavior, can anyone’s constitutional rights be canceled on a whim? According to the government in a related case, regarding its similarly claimed power to declare marijuana users “unvirtuous,” the answer is essentially “yes.” As per the judge’s account of his exchange with the federal prosecutor:

The cases discussed above relate specifically to rights protected by the Second Amendment, but what limits the government from stopping there? If it believes its own arguments about the danger posed by cannabis patients, then why doesn’t it strip, for example, their Fourth Amendment rights as well? If someone is so violence-prone that we have no choice but to remove their constitutionally protected means of self-defense, why not also subject them to random searches to prevent and disrupt violent acts?

The government also cites historical laws against firearm possession by actively intoxicated people, but that is an entirely different issue and such laws currently exist at the state level regardless. There is also no way to prevent someone from abusing widely available, often violence-inducing alcohol and causing harm with a vehicle or any other lethal object, so a unique “dangerousness” label for those who used cannabis on some recent prior day is beyond laughable.

The Supreme Court recently granted the “pro-gun” Trump Justice Department’s request to consider reversing the dismissal of relevant charges against a user of recreational, non-state-legal marijuana. Although the current Court generally rules for the administration, this may prove a rare exception—but not even the broadest, most extreme rebuke of §922(g)(3) would solve the problem. Though highly unlikely, the Court might decide that short of active intoxication there is no frequency or intensity of "unlawful use" of controlled substances sufficient to bar firearm ownership. A future majority can nevertheless overturn that ruling as long as the legislation remains on the books.

What's more, the practical effect of this specific policy is less concerning than what its existence says about our lawmakers generally. By raising an attention-grabbing level of funds, however, Americans across the political spectrum can make significant progress in guiding them toward logic and liberty.