Politics: Paul-Barney Bill Would Legalize Marijuana Federally

shafty023 writes "It would appear Ron Paul (R-TX) and Barney Frank (D-MA) are going to be presenting a bill to legalize marijuana and thus end the failed war on drugs finally if it gets passed. What chances do you all think this bill has in the Senate and House or even surviving the president's veto pen?" Note that there would still be plenty of drug war left to go around, even if (as this bill sets out to accomplish) the Federal government stops chasing marijuana.

As usual, summary is wrong

[ColdWetDog]

This would NOT legalize marijuana. It would allow states to determine if marijuana COULD be legalized or controlled (as in medical marijuana).

This bill, the "Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011," is broader and bolder than the medical marijuana bills that Congressman Frank has introduced in every Congress since 1995. The bill introduced today would allow states to determine their own marijuana laws -- not just medical marijuana laws -- without federal interference.

Source [alternet.org] (and others).

Let's try for some accuracy here. It's not all that hard. You'd think the editors were stoned or something.

Not a complete solution

[daedae]

I guess it depends on what the states do, then. Removing it from federal schedules just pushes down to the states. Some states will probably legalize it, but some states that were relying on the federal categorization will probably locally criminalize it. (This is based on the fact that salvia is currently not listed on any federal schedule but has been individually criminalized in several states.)

Re:As usual, summary is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

So it removes the federal laws against marijuana, legalizing marijuana federally. Got it.

Re:I won't hold my breath

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Way to completely miss the point. It failed because the people running the medicinal marijuana stores (and their associated pet doctors) are making WAY too much money from it to allow it to be legalized. They spent a metric fuckton of money to make sure it got defeated so they could keep their monopoly.

Re:Obama's too conservative

[Hatta]

Most of the responsible ones are still closeted. There is a war on them, you know.

Re:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ??

[geekoid]

"Are you saying that the decision to not force other people to cough up money to support social programs means "not loving thy neighbor"?"

Yes, Precisely.

"Conservatives (and the Religious Right) are far more likely than liberals to give of their **own** money to support "love thy neighbor" programs."
False. In fact the most generous group is actually atheists. Who, btw, have no afterlife angle there playing. Doing it because you're afraid you will be accountable to your sky wizard is not charity, it's paying for points.

If Jesus was a real person* he defiantly would be for social programs. How you can read your theology and come out any other way is just the height of cognitive dissonance.

Social programs are the cheapest and best way to make a long term positive effect on society. It's sad that people like you take your knee jerk reactionism before actual data and fact. Bunch of self centered whinny Beckerheads.

*highly unlikely.

Re:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ??

[Mr. Slippery]

Are you saying that the decision to not force other people to cough up money to support social programs means "not loving thy neighbor"? That's absurd.

May I suggest the words of the founder of Xianity himself on taxes? "Render on to Caesar what is Caesar's." Like all property not based directly on use or occupation, money is a creation of the state; the state taking its own share back out of what it creates is not "forcing" anyone to do anything. You're free to try to live without state-created money, or state-created 'property rights" to land and the resources extracted from it. Let me know how that works out for you.

Conservatives (and the Religious Right) are far more likely than liberals to give of their **own** money to support "love thy neighbor" programs.

Conservatives are far more likely to live in states that receive more from the federal government than they pay out. To some degree, that money that red state conservatives claim as their "own" is coming from the parts of the country that are actually productive -- by and large, the bluer states.

Then there's that fact that donating to a church counts as donating to a charity. And then there's the question of who is giving more: the person who gives up a potentially lucrative career to work in one of the helping professions, or some banker fsckwad who screw people all week long and then donates to charity on Sunday?

Put it all together and yes, its pretty clear that, by and large, the mindless zealotry of the Religious Right and of the modern conservative movement does little to help the poor -- and in fact by rotting away the foundations of our economy, harms them.

Re:Obama's too conservative

[betterunixthanunix]

Pot smoke contains most of the same carcinogens as regular tobacco smoke.

Except that marijuana smoke does not contain any Tobacco-specific nitrosamines, and the evidence so far is that marijuana smokers are not more likely to develop cancer than non-smokers. That aside, smoking is not the only means by which marijuana is consumed, and non-smoking methods of use appear to have no permanent effects (as opposed to non-smoking methods of using tobacco, which still increase the risk of cancer).

You would be much more accurate to say that: "Marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco."

Actually, it is significantly less dangerous, to the point where we can only guess at what the lethal dosage is (since there are no recorded cases of someone overdosing). There is scant evidence of long term health effects following the cessation of marijuana use. THC and CBD also have neuroprotective properties, which may actually make marijuana use somewhat beneficial (more research needs to be done here).

100% safe? Nothing is 100% safe. You could have an unknown allergy to marijuana, or there may be some kind of mutation in a particular crop that causes a danger. Or your government might have laced your marijuana with poison:

http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/articles/1767.html [cannabisculture.com]

Re:Obama's too conservative

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you need to re-evaluate your information. Study after study have consistently shown that there is no evidence that marijuana is carcinogenic.

The only known case of ANY ANIMAL dying as a direct result of marijuana is a monkey that was exposed to so much marijuana smoke that it died from the LACK OF OXYGEN. They kept on giving the monkeys more and more smoke until eventually one of them died, because Reagan wanted a study to back up his anti-marijuana stance.

http://www.electricemperor.com/eecdrom/HTML/EMP/15/ECH15_03.HTM [electricemperor.com]

Re:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ??

[ThurstonMoore]

From the fourth book of Acts

The Believers Share Their Possessions

  32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
  36 Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”), 37 sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

I think Jesus and his posse were Socialists