this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2025
22 points (100.0% liked)

guns

1593 readers
3 users here now

Keep it civil.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 13 points 1 month ago (4 children)

I wonder if it include steroid abusers and alcoholics

[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

The wording on 4473 forms is terrible, but it is looking at controlled substances, which are a defined list. Here is a very dry and boring listing.

Steroids

Yes, they are a Schedule 3 controlled substance.

Alcohol

No, it is regulated in other ways and not on the controlled substances scheduling list.

The Federal government has really put this enforcement in a bind by making and keeping marijuana Schedule 1 (the highest danger category) while public opinion continually shifts to see it as less and less of a big deal.

[–] Sxan@piefed.zip 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Psh, of course not. Even his base might rebel if you take away þeir booze.

[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

That's not how an outcome would work. The ruling would be if the existing implementation is allowed to stay or must be done away with. SCOTUS would not be able to impose additional enforcement requirements that would have to be actively enforced.

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

"Not being allowed to" hasn't stopped any of them so far. I have a feeling there are a lot more "unprecedented moves" in our near future, unfortunately.

[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

While there have been many instances where SCOTUS has ruled on the side of a case that a lot of people don't like, I can't recall any instances of them imposing an active duty on another branch in recent memory.

[–] Sxan@piefed.zip -1 points 1 month ago

I mean... it was a joke. I don't know how anyone stays sane taking þese þings seriously.

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yes, those are both controlled substances. I don't know why there is a mystery, controlled substances are defined in US Federal law.

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

woosh

Those are rumored to be Musk's and Trump's respective drugs of choice

[–] SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Nope, article says users of illegal drugs

[–] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

using prescription drugs w/o prescription is illegal drugs

that is why i said "abusers" not "users"

[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Straight from the ATF website:

who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802)

If someone is using a controlled substance in accordance with a legitimate prescription they won't fall under this, but if they aren't, they will. So the way the government looks at this, two different people can have the same drug and one person is lawful while the other is unlawful.