Bruh
Edit: I decided to not be entirely snarky and take a shot to answer earnestly. This case (I think) did not explicitly define non violent. The closest we've come is the 5th circuit, namely ACB, who attempted to apply a standard of dangerousness to individuals and 2a prohibition. Can be best summarized as non-dangerous people should not lose 2A rights if they are convicted of a crime that would otherwise make them a PP, if the crime would be reasonably determined as one that would not attribute a dangerousness label to the defendant. if the crime (such as murder) would clearly attribute the person as "dangerous", then the gvt is well within its means to strip their 2A right based on historical context.
A MJ conviction, one could easily argue based on ACB's interpretation, does not make someone inherently dangerous and therefore could possibly be considered "non violent". I'm not sure that has ever been hashed out (pun intended) at the district or court of appeals level, but I'm not following anything and everything and I'm not a lawyer.
If you were talking about MJ use absent an actual conviction, and I hate to be that guy because I find similar responses annoying, this has been addressed numerous times on NES. You can find a recent discussion by clicking the link I shared quoting your reply.