The Inconsistency About Cannabis And Guns

Exploring the inconsistency about cannabis and guns, where freedom for firearms clashes with outdated marijuana laws

In the ongoing culture‑war of American politics, few issues highlight the contradictions within the conservative, pro‑Second Amendment world quite like the pairing of gun ownership and marijuana use. the inconsistency about cannabis and guns makes for odd political alliances.

On the one hand, many on the Right argue vigorously that the individual right to keep and bear arms must be protected from government infringement. Yet on the other, that same political cohort often supports strict federal prohibitions preventing lawful — and even state‑legal — cannabis users from purchasing firearms. By contrast, alcohol use, which is legal nationwide, is rarely treated as a disqualifier for gun ownership despite strong associations with firearm violence. That contrast raises questions about consistency, principle and policy.

RELATED: Immersive Events Redefine Millennial Nights

• By contrast, cannabis incident data tied to firearms (for example, use of marijuana plus gun‑possession) are far less publicly quantified, though one Hawaii report found that of some 23,528 firearm permit applications, 519 (~ 2.2 %) were denied — and of those, 211 (~ 40.7 %) were due to the applicant’s status as a medical‑marijuana patient.

What emerges: legal alcohol is widespread, common among gun‑owners, and strongly implicated in firearm‑related violence; cannabis is increasingly used, often legal at the state level, but its users are often precluded from gun rights under federal law.

At the federal level, under the Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) prohibits any person who is an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” from possessing a firearm. Because cannabis remains a Schedule I controlled substance federally, state legal‑use does not override the restriction.

In recent years, courts have challenged this blanket prohibition. For example:

• The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that applying § 922(g)(3) to someone who uses marijuana but isn’t intoxicated at the moment may violate the standard set in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) because firearm regulations must be consistent with historical traditions.

• The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in August 2025 that medical‑marijuana users in Florida had plausibly alleged that the federal prohibition violated their Second Amendment rights.

• And the Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to review whether regular marijuana users can legally own guns, with arguments expected in early 2026.

Thus, the legal collision is clear: dozens of states permit adult‑use or medical cannabis; federal law bans gun ownership by cannabis users; and courts are now reconsidering the constitutional footing of that ban.

RELATED: The Connection Between Country Music And Cannabis

From the vantage of many conservative advocates, gun rights are sacrosanct: the individual right to own firearms for self‑defense, deterrence of tyranny, and personal liberty. Meanwhile, proponents of cannabis reform argue that legal adult‑use meets the same liberty standard — and yet those who support gun rights often also support or accept federal cannabis prohibition that strips gun rights from users, even when state‑legal.

The contradictory posture arises when one considers: if gun ownership is a fundamental individual right irrespective of political views, why exclude lawful adults simply because they also use cannabis? Especially when alcohol use, far more prevalent and demonstrably tied to firearm violence, does not (in most cases) lead to automatic loss of gun rights. That asymmetry suggests an underlying value‑judgment: alcohol is socially accepted (and taxed) despite risk; cannabis is socially stigmatized even as laws evolve. The Right’s selective focus — defending guns fiercely while accepting restrictions for cannabis users — raises questions about consistency of principle.

This contradiction has real‑world consequences: legal ambiguity for millions of Americans, a patchwork of state laws vs. federal restrictions, and potential erosion of trust in institutions when liberty claims are applied unevenly. For the Right’s long‑term credibility on individual rights, the question becomes: can you credibly champion “freedom to keep and bear arms” while endorsing a regime that denies that freedom to law‑abiding adults because of a behavior (cannabis use) that’s legal in many states?

In short: to claim consistency, the pro‑gun conservative movement must either defend gun rights across the board(including for cannabis users) or explain why this particular group is different. Until then, the contrast between alcohol, cannabis, and firearms under the law remains a striking example of “rights for some, restrictions for others.”