As a Medical Cannabis Patient, I’m Watching This Supreme Court Case Closely

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week in United States v. Hemani, a case that could determine whether millions of Americans who use cannabis are automatically barred from owning firearms.

For people like me, the stakes are personal.

I am a state-authorized medical cannabis patient in Colorado. I’ve relied on cannabis therapeutically for decades to manage serious medical issues and chronic pain while avoiding opioid medications.

I use topical cannabis preparations on arthritic joints, burns, wounds and muscle injuries. I vape cannabis oil to help manage nerve pain and inflammation. Cannabis also helps me sleep and stay calm when life is chaotic — something that matters after surviving a stroke. Keeping my stress levels down and my blood pressure stable is critical to reducing the risk of another stroke.

For me, cannabis isn’t recreational. It’s medicine.

In my own life, medical cannabis has not prevented me from functioning, working or pursuing higher education. While using medical cannabis therapeutically, I have been able to maintain strong academic performance and was placed on both the President’s List (4.0 GPA) and the Dean’s List (3.5–3.99 GPA). Like many medical cannabis patients, I live a normal and productive life while managing chronic medical conditions.

But under federal law, that medicine can cost me a constitutional right.

A federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), prohibits anyone who is an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance from possessing a firearm. Because marijuana remains illegal under federal law — even though it is legal for medical use in Colorado and many other states — medical cannabis patients like me fall into that category.

The law does not ask whether we are violent.
It does not ask whether we misuse firearms.
It does not ask whether we pose any danger to anyone.

It simply disarms us based on status.

That is the question now before the Supreme Court.

In recent years the Court has said that modern gun laws must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. In its 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Court ruled that governments must point to historical analogues when restricting the right to keep and bear arms.

During the Hemani argument, several justices focused on a central issue: dangerousness. If the government can disarm entire categories of people, there must be some historical tradition showing that those groups were considered dangerous or incapable of responsible firearm ownership.

The government has pointed to historical laws regulating “habitual drunkards.” But those laws generally involved findings that a person was incapacitated or unable to manage their affairs. They did not automatically strip rights from people simply for consuming a substance.

That distinction matters.

Millions of Americans use cannabis legally under state medical programs. Many are veterans managing PTSD. Others live with chronic pain, neurological conditions or long-term injuries. Some use cannabis to reduce reliance on opioids or other pharmaceuticals with serious side effects.

These patients work, attend school, raise families and participate in their communities. Yet federal law categorically disarms them.

For patients like me, the right of self-defense is not theoretical. Many people who rely on medical cannabis are physically vulnerable. Some live alone. Some live in rural areas where police response times are long. Others are recovering from injuries or trauma.

The Second Amendment states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The question the Court now faces is whether medical cannabis patients are still part of “the people.”

I believe we are.

The Constitution does not prevent the government from disarming individuals who are demonstrably dangerous. It does not prevent regulating firearm use while someone is actively intoxicated. But automatically disarming millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens simply because they use a plant as medicine raises serious constitutional questions.

Cannabis laws in America are changing rapidly. Medical use is now recognized in most states, and research into cannabinoids continues to expand. Some experimental studies have explored how cannabinoids may influence neurological processes, including activity in the hippocampus.

But the Supreme Court’s decision in Hemani is not really about cannabis policy.

It is about whether constitutional rights can disappear because federal law still classifies a plant differently than the states do.

As a medical cannabis patient, I am watching closely — because the outcome will determine whether people like me must choose between our medicine and our rights.

On weekends, westword.com publishes commentaries on matters of interest to the Denver community. Have one you’d like to share? Send it to editorial@westword.com, where you can also comment on this piece.