Cannabis, Guns, and Civil Liberties: Why America’s Laws Are Due for an Update

Arguments for and against “reconsidering cannabis”

By Clayton “Tiger” Hulin, image from TheCannabisCommunity.org

The debate over cannabis and firearm rights has moved from legal niche into national conversation. As more states legalize cannabis for medical and recreational use, federal law continues to treat cannabis users as prohibited firearm possessors. The result is a legal contradiction affecting millions of Americans.

This is no longer just a marijuana policy debate. It raises a deeper constitutional question: can peaceful adults lose core civil rights because of conduct that is lawful where they live?

Public Opinion: A Nation Reconsidering Cannabis

Support for cannabis legalization has shifted dramatically over the past half century. Gallup reports that approximately 70 percent of Americans now support legalizing marijuana, the highest level recorded since the organization began tracking the issue in 1969, when support stood at just 12 percent (Gallup, 2023).

Pew Research Center similarly finds that nearly nine in ten Americans believe marijuana should be legal for medical or recreational use. Only about 10 percent of adults believe it should remain fully illegal nationwide (Pew Research Center, 2024).

These attitudes cross generational and political lines. While younger Americans show the strongest support, majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and independents now favor some form of legalization. Public opinion has moved faster than federal law.

The Legal Conflict on Firearms

Under federal statute 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), it is illegal for an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” to possess a firearm. Because cannabis remains classified as a Schedule I substance, even legal state-level cannabis users fall under this prohibition.

This creates a paradox. In many states, a citizen can legally purchase cannabis from a licensed dispensary and legally buy a firearm under state law, yet still be committing a federal felony by possessing both.

According to federal survey data, roughly 61 million Americans reported using marijuana in the past year (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2023). Meanwhile, about one-third of U.S. adults report personally owning a firearm (Pew Research Center, 2024). The overlap between these populations is not trivial. The federal ban potentially applies to tens of millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens.

Arguments Supporting the Federal Ban

Supporters of the prohibition argue that Congress has broad authority to regulate firearms in the interest of public safety.

First, the government has long restricted gun access for groups it considers high-risk, including convicted felons and individuals subject to domestic violence orders. Proponents argue that substance use, particularly intoxication, can impair judgment and increase the risk of accidental or impulsive violence.

Second, a categorical rule is easier to enforce than a subjective one. Federal regulators worry that creating exceptions or impairment-based standards would complicate background checks and weaken consistent enforcement.

From this perspective, the law is a preventative safety measure designed to reduce the intersection of impairment and lethal force.

Arguments Against the Ban

Critics argue the federal statute punishes status rather than behavior. A citizen may lose Second Amendment rights not because of violence, threats, or reckless conduct, but simply because of cannabis use, even when that use is legal under state law.

This distinction matters. Modern constitutional principles generally punish conduct that creates harm, not identity or lawful personal choices. Alcohol provides a clear comparison. Americans may drink legally and still own firearms. The law regulates carrying or using weapons while intoxicated, not the mere fact of being a drinker.

The cannabis ban, by contrast, imposes a sweeping, categorical disarmament based on classification alone. Opponents argue that treating all cannabis users as inherently dangerous lacks individualized assessment and clashes with evolving constitutional standards.

There is also a federalism concern. Nearly half of U.S. states allow adult recreational cannabis use, and an even larger majority permit medical use. Penalizing citizens at the federal level for conduct their states regulate openly creates a legal trap that many consumers do not fully understand.

History, Tradition, and Constitutional Questions

Recent Supreme Court decisions require courts to evaluate firearm regulations against historical traditions of gun governance. Critics of the cannabis ban argue there is little historical precedent for permanently disarming peaceful citizens based on the use of a plant, particularly one widely cultivated in early American history as hemp.

Supporters of reform emphasize that the Constitution protects individual rights unless the government can demonstrate a strong, historically grounded justification for restricting them. Blanket bans affecting millions of nonviolent citizens are increasingly difficult to defend under that framework.

A Balanced Path Forward

Public safety and civil liberty are not mutually exclusive goals.

Many legal scholars propose a middle-ground approach: restrict firearm possession while a person is actively impaired by any intoxicating substance, including alcohol, cannabis, or sedatives, but restore rights once the impairment ends. This mirrors how society handles driving under the influence. We regulate dangerous behavior, not lawful personal identity.

Such a model would address genuine safety concerns without permanently stripping rights from responsible adults.

Conclusion

America’s cannabis laws reflect a society in transition. Cultural acceptance and state-level legalization have outpaced federal policy, leaving citizens caught between conflicting systems.

When tens of millions of peaceful adults engage in conduct their communities accept as lawful, sweeping federal penalties begin to look less like targeted safety measures and more like outdated remnants of a prior era.

Reforming these laws does not require ignoring public safety. It requires aligning policy with evidence, public opinion, and constitutional principles. A modern legal framework can protect citizens from real harm while restoring rights where punishment exceeds the conduct.

The challenge now facing lawmakers and courts is whether the law will evolve alongside the society it governs.

---