​​Unquestionably. The FDA has approved multiple synthetic (https://www.fda.gov/news-events/public-health-focus/fda-and-cannabis-research-and-drug-approval-process)versions of marijuana’s primary active compound, THC, at least one of which is even prescribed by the Department of Defense (https://www.jbsa.mil/News/News/Article/1990902/legal-news-for-soldiers-taking-prescribed-medications-that-include-synthetic-thc)to active-duty service members despite the risk of significant career disruption. These synthetic drugs are associated with more negative effects (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23291209)than the natural version, however, while also lacking the beneficial “entourage effect”(https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/entourage-effect) o(https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/entourage-effect)f compounds that are found only in the plant itself.

18 US Code §922(g)(3) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922)bars firearm possession by “an unlawful user” of any controlled substance,(https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/802) and 18 US Code §924(a)(8) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/924)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 (https://web.archive.org/web/20240117215415/https:/www.justice.gov/file/1385186/download)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 (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/01/22/2026-01141/revising-definition-of-unlawful-user-of-or-addicted-to-controlled-substance)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 patients would remain). Though Congress passed a law (https://cannacon.org/medical-cannabis-protection-rohrabacher-farr-amendment)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 alone after being reprimanded (https://american-safe-access.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Rohrabacher-Farr_Letter_to_DOJ.pdf)by the measure’s bipartisan authors, but it has remained committed to destroying their lives for otherwise legal firearm possession.

Every purchaser of a firearm from a federally licensed dealer must attest (https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download)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 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)(https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/constructive_possession) and are issued the cannabis license later.

No. Around 200,000 people are arrested (https://www.marijuanamoment.net/more-than-200000-people-were-arrested-for-marijuana-in-the-u-s-last-year-fbi-data-shows)each year for simple marijuana possession alone, and again, the Department of Justice (under President Obama no less) specifically tried to continue prosecuting (https://american-safe-access.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Rohrabacher-Farr_Letter_to_DOJ.pdf)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 (https://medvinlaw.com/federal-law-felon-possession-firearm)loses their right to possess a firearm.

It affects every American. The criminalization of victimless activity, especially that which is constitutionally protected, fosters a disrespect for the law that serves to fuel actual crime. In a more direct sense, it certainly harms everyone who is deterred from conduct that they have the 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 (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3535068)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.

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 (https://www.marijuanamoment.net/federal-court-dismisses-florida-ag-commissioners-lawsuit-on-medical-marijuana-patients-gun-rights)the Biden Justice Department over this very issue, it countered (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flnd.429977/gov.uscourts.flnd.429977.14.0.pdf)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” is not 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 (https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/zdpxdnqykpx/02032023harrison.pdf)of his exchange with the federal prosecutor: ​Imagine a world where [a state] could make mowing one’s lawn a felony so that it could then strip all its newly deemed ‘felons’ of their right to possess a firearm…Remarkably, when presented with this lawn-mowing hypothetical argument, and asked if such an approach would be consistent with the Second Amendment, the United States said ‘yes.’ So, in the federal government’s view, a state or the federal government could deem anything at all a felony and then strip those convicted of that felony—no matter how innocuous the conduct—of their fundamental right to possess a firearm. In sum, the position of the federal government is that it retains a general power to revoke the constitutional rights of anyone at any time. 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 reason is that many government officials “feel” like the Second Amendment doesn’t “count as much” as the rest of the Bill of Rights, but one day they may decide they “feel” that way about other rights too. This is why it’s so urgent to stamp out imaginary authoritarian concepts like “collective right”(https://www.cprba.org/collective-right) once and for all. The government does also cite historical laws against firearm possession by actively intoxicated people, but this has zero bearing on the issue at hand. There is no way to physically prevent someone from abusing widely available, violence-inducing alcohol and causing harm with a vehicle or any other lethal object, so a unique “dangerousness” label for those who may have ingested cannabis the previous day is laughable.

The Supreme Court recently granted (https://mblawfirm.com/insights/guns-cannabis-and-the-constitution-scotus-to-hear-united-states-v-hemani-on-cannabis-use-and-gun-ownership)the “pro-gun” Trump Justice Department’s request to consider reversing the dismissal of charges in a relevant case, with a decision anticipated in mid-2026. Although the current Court overwhelmingly rules in favor of Trump’s administration, which handpicked this case because the defendant just so happens to have alleged ties to Iranian terrorism, this could prove to be a rare exception—but even if it were to completely strike down the law, that would be far from the end of the issue. Numerous top Democrats want to expand (https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/18/2020-democrats-supreme-court-1223625)the Court,(https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/05/16/2023/sen-markey-rep-johnson-announce-legislation-to-expand-supreme-court-restore-its-legitimacy-alongside-sen-smith-reps-bush-and-schiff) and their continued belief in “collective right”(https://www.cprba.org/collective-right) means that any favorable decision can be overturned.