Politics: Paul-Barney Bill Would Legalize Marijuana Federally 688
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.
Obama's too conservative (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it would even get to the President.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Obama's too conservative (Score:5, Insightful)
Additionally, legalization will allow users to know exactly WHAT is in the pot their buying.
Why would Joe Potsmoker want to go buy from some random dealer down the street and have to guess to the quality and contents, whereas if it were legal nobody would pick a dealer over going down to the store and picking some up that you know for sure is good quality and has met the regulations laid out by the authoritative body assigned to do so.
I am a daily smoker. I have graduated college, I have a great job, I support my family. I pay taxes, I donate to charities. I help others when I am able. Yet, in the eyes of Uncle Sam, I am a horrible person that deserves incarceration for my unspeakable acts against my country and people. It is a fucking joke. Anslinger drug (pun intended) MJ through the mud with scare tactics and blatant lies. Not one justification for making it illegal given by Anslinger or the government at that time held any water.
There is no logical, scientific, or rational reason to maintain the illegal, SCHEDULE 1 (same as the hard drugs, i.e. heroin, crack cocaine, etc.) classification that the government has on MJ.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Obama's too conservative (Score:5, Informative)
Most of the responsible ones are still closeted. There is a war on them, you know.
Re:Obama's too conservative (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure it's like that with harder drugs, too. I mean, something like 200 million tons of cocaine make it in to the USA annually; there's no way in hell that's all getting cut with baking soda and being used by poor crackheads.
I would not be surprised if a rather large portion of upper class America is addicted to cocaine, and we only hear about the ones that crash and burn - just like we only hear about alcoholics who drive in to trees one night, not the ones who have six beers for dinner every night.
Re:Obama's too conservative (Score:5, Insightful)
Selection bias. The people who are blatantly high all the time mostly wouldn't be doing anything anyway, so they smoke pot to pass the time they'd spend staring at the wall regardless. There are plenty of functional potheads who smoke everyday--you just don't know they do because they are functional and not blatant about it so you don't know they're smoking. Pot's not like crack or heroin, which fundamentally hijack your biochemistry, and change your priorities in ways you cannot control.
Re: (Score:3)
I can tell you've never hung out with machinists. Smoking pot doesn't affect your ability to operate machinery any more than it affects your ability to play Street Fighter or Call of Duty.
Coming from a 3 year marijuana bend I can tell you that it depends on the person and the amount of pot you have had. Speaking from a dutch perspective, where marijuana is very much legal to smoke in doors, yet illegal to grow in any amount for oneself, I find it ironic that our politicians are trying to put some of the stronger flavors under the hard drugs illegal section. I mean honestly, who better then to look for marijuana advice then the ol' cheese kingdom.
Re: (Score:3)
You shouldn't operate machinery under effects of alcohol, either.
Alcohol is detectable when there is enough to impair you. Marijuana on the other hand "hangs around in your system for as long as 24 hours after smoking. The lingering effects mean you're impaired for several hours after the high wears off." http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/marijuana-use-and-its-effects [webmd.com]. There is a demonstrable difference in the duration and severity of each of these substances. Marijuana has the longest duration of the three, and the abilities that are compromised are mostly cognitive
Re:Obama's too conservative (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama's simply too conservative to sign a bill like this. He should, but he won't. The fact that marijuana is 100% safe isn't enough to sway the screaming, mindless Christians, and Obama needs at least some of their votes.
Take a hard honest look at the world and you'll find that those who wish to control others come in all stripes and operate under all banners. Every person who ever gets offended at anything and responds not by no longer watching/viewing/reading/listening to that thing, but by seeking to have it banned, is also part of the problem. Every person who thinks they know what is best for you and that their recommendations for how you live should have the force of law behind them are also part of the problem.
Anyone who would ever tell consenting adults what they may do with their bodies, in the privacy of their homes, with their money, or what they may read, watch, and think is quite plainly an abomination. So long as force or fraud is not used to harm an unwilling participant, we are and should be free to live our lives as we see fit and then bear the consequences.
If some Christians were the only ones who failed to understand that, it would be a drastic improvement. You have to get over your religious bigotry if you are to actually understand the scope of the problem. No, I'm not offended by it -- why would I bother handling it in such an immature and cowardly fashion when I can meet it head-on and explain exactly what is wrong with it, secure that my reason is sound? I have no reason to get offended and look for a way to punish you for engaging in this kind of bigotry. The fact that you will never understand the nature of the problem until you get over that means you're doing a great job of punishing yourself.
Wallowing in the darkness of ignorance and feeling powerless to effect any meaningful change is worse than anything I would hypothetically do to you (emphasis on hypothetically, just to be clear). That's something the childish people who scream about how offended they are will never understand: the built-in justice of being harmed or edified not for what you do, but by it. They haven't the understanding or the dispassion. They're too busy serving an impulse to control that will never be satisfied.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that people who don't agree with me have the potential to injure or kill others certainly makes it attractive to say that all drugs should be banned.
Everyone has the potential to injure or kill others. Your reasoning is childish at best.
An altered state of mind could be extremely dangerous in certain situations - driving, caring for children, even using a stove.
So can an un-altered state of mind.
Your reasoning is on the same level of saying that since you might drown if you get a cramp while swimming after eating, no one should eat. It simply doesn't follow. What does follow is that one shouldn't swim right after eating.
I'm all for personal freedoms, but when people with chemically impaired judgement start a fire and I have to stand out in the snow in my robe at 3 AM for 45 minutes then having those guys punished sounds pretty good to me.
And you sound like a selfish, self-righteous prick to me. But you don't see me suggesting you should be thrown in prison, do you? I mean, your complaint is
Re:Obama's too conservative (Score:5, Insightful)
You arrived at that conclusion on your own and have chosen to act accordingly. All other people want is the opportunity to do the same. There is a big difference between reasonable laws that protect others from the negligence and irresponsibility of others, versus legislating morality.
For which reason driving while intoxicated (on anything, not just alcohol) is against the law. That's reasonable because it punishes irresponsible behavior while leaving responsible drinkers alone.
Freedom is not and has never been free. There will always be members of society who do not accept the responsibility that comes with freedom and they must be dealt with. Unlike legislating morality, this a legitimate use of the law enforcement power of government. It's precisely what law enforcement and the court systems are for.
You can try banning alcohol, again, but that didn't stop people from drinking. You can keep trying to ban drugs, some more, but it isn't restricting access to drugs. These are facts, and as facts, they don't particularly care how you feel about them. Perhaps we can all agree that laws which ignore facts belong in books of fiction, not our books of law.
Driving can be dangerous. So can power tools. Do we respond to this by banning automobiles and power tools? No. Instead, we educate, we demonstrate and encourage responsible use. We communicate that there is the expectation they be done correctly. We are clear about the fact that responsible use is a matter of decision and priority.
I fully agree that they should be punished. However, they should be punished for starting a fire and causing losses to others, not for doing drugs. Plenty of people drink and do drugs without burning the place down. Likewise, plenty of sober people do something stupid and cause fires, both in buildings and in forests. When they do, we punish them for having started a fire, not for being distracted by something less important.
We sure do. But we wait until they actually harm someone before we punish them and that's critical. Or we wait until they show actual evidence of criminal insanity, or actual evidence of being physically unable to handle the demands of driving a car. We don't yet punish people for thought crimes. We should not continue to punish people for state-of-consciousness crimes. Only for how they handle it and what results they allow.
Re:Obama's too conservative (Score:5, Insightful)
And that line is "do your actions credibly threaten to harm another people or interfere with their rights?" Your neighbor drinking a six-pack of beer, smoking a joint, or shooting heroin does none of those things, so long as it stays in their home. Irresponsible behavior, on the other hand, is irresponsible whether its origins lie in stupidity, drug use, mental illness, or ignorance, and must be dealt with. Drug use is almost orthogonal to the question.
Considering that drug use is found throughout the animal kingdom, and that even capital punishment has failed to end the use of various drugs throughout human history, good luck with that. Meanwhile, those of us in the reality-based community will be working for ways to preserve liberty and reduce harm by ending the War on (Some) Drugs.
Re: (Score:3)
Well then, plan on giving up sex and any food with more taste than tofu. The reason we crave sex and food is that they produce chemicals that provide us with pleasure responses.
Re: (Score:3)
He won't have to. There is no chance of this ever getting to the president.
Re:Obama's too conservative (Score:4, Interesting)
The fact that marijuana is 100% safe
100% safe, huh? Not if you have a genetic predisposition to schizophrenia, it can increase your chances of developing it by 10x. There are also some other correlations, but then again correlation != causation. Really all I'm getting at is lets not call it a wonder drug with no downsides.
http://www.schizophrenia.com/prevention/streetdrugs.html [schizophrenia.com]
BTW I am in favor of legalizing it
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you need to re-evaluate your information. Pot smoke contains most of the same carcinogens as regular tobacco smoke. Likewise, THC does have some CNS depressant characteristics.
You would be much more accurate to say that: "Marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco." Otherwise, you're basing your argument on a fallacy, which allows opponents to discount the entire argument.
Re:Obama's too conservative (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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 [electricemperor.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I think you need to re-evaluate your information. Pot smoke contains most of the same carcinogens as regular tobacco smoke. Likewise, THC does have some CNS depressant characteristics.
You would be much more accurate to say that: "Marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco." Otherwise, you're basing your argument on a fallacy, which allows opponents to discount the entire argument.
Actually, you are incorrect.
A not well-publicized fact about marijuana smokers is that, unlike cigarette smokers, pot smokers have no greater chance of getting lung cancer or even COPD [showmethefacts.org] than people who smoke NOTHING. In fact, there is evidence that it may even help COPD patients.
Re:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ?? (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe you've neglected to consider Muslim bashing when stating your claim. Kind of tops out Christians for the top spot of politically-correct hatred by a wide margin.
Look! Is that a Sharia Law behind you? [ducks out]
Re:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
What's really bad about the whole thing is that not all Christians are like this. There's a lot of other denominations of Christianity, such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc., which don't have their own TV networks, don't have mega-churches seating thousands with a Starbucks right outside the main seating room, and just preach simple wholesome stuff like "love thy neighbor", etc., instead of screaming about homosexuals and global warming all the time.
Unfortunately, these Christians (which used to be called
True. True. (Score:5, Interesting)
You guys drifted slightly form the original comment's theme however, which is :
America's War on Drug is the fault of American Christianity precisely because they codify everything is this ridiculous & stupid religious morality play, public health issues, personal choice issues, medical issues, economic issues, scientific issues, educational issues, everything. If not for American Christianity, the War on Pot would be nothing more than some anti-Mexican racist rhetoric decades ago.
As an aside, I back off from criticizing christianity only when discussing some person like Jimmy Carter, who engages in major charitable works both intelligently & effectively. I respect Carter's motivations, and avoid insulting them, specifically because I respect his works. Yet, most American Christians, even mainlines ones, tacitly support the American Taliban by accepting bullshit Christian moralistic rhetoric, equating Christianity with morality, etc. And there should be no verbal quarter for them. Btw, I've just bough a stuffed velociraptor toy to dress in swaddling clothes as "Baby Velociraptor Jesus" this Halloween. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Christians are very good at that sort of thing too, as are a lot of the other sky fairy cultists. But in any case if you're referring to the US is it not the case that being a God botherer is a huge electoral advantage?
Re:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh for fucks sake. Quit feeling persecuted. To be an American president you at least have to pay lip service to Jesus.
It's infuriating to be always be associated with whiny self righteous Christians constantly bitching about how much everyone discriminates against them and how hard it is to be a christian.
Get some damn perspective.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ?? (Score:4, Interesting)
Indeed! We've actually reached the point where the American population is more willing to vote for an openly homosexual President than they are to vote for an openly atheist President. This is progress [people-press.org], of a sort, but still - 61% of respondents said that they are less likely to vote for an atheist, compared to 33% saying that they are less likely to vote for a homosexual.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see how this is surprising: Republican voters are constantly voting for homosexual politicians such as Larry Craig.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry, but comparing the civil rights movement to the present day white protestant who is just so oppressed by a federal government where "The bible says so" is a valid position when debating legislation is so idiotic that it doesn't warrant a more detailed rebuttal.
Re:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ?? (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair, the "Religious Right" votes for the same people as those who want to do away with all social programs.
So much for loving thy neighbor.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ?? (Score:5, Informative)
"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: (Score:3)
Nearly every word of your post needs citation. As far as I've seen (and I've looked) the pool of resources can be highly efficient. To my knowledge it hasn't been discredited. I may be wrong, but I'd like some evidence other than "well *everybody* knows it's nonsense"
Please back up your claims.
Re: (Score:3)
I seriously doubt many atheists (myself included) would consider themselves socially conservative as most of the reasoning behind social conservatism is religious in nature but you may find a few atheists that are economically "conservative"/libertarian. The majority however, are likely secular humanists which are more often than not, liberal socially and economically speaking.
Re:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ?? (Score:5, Informative)
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 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:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ?? (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To be fair, the "Religious Right" votes for the same people as those who want to do away with all social programs.
So much for loving thy neighbor.
When the bible talks about "loving thy neighbor" it's talking about the person actually doing it. Not some proxy, government pawn issuing coupons for cheese. Keep "loving thy neighbor" where it should be, in the hands of the populace close to the need, else the government will get to determine what "loving thy neighbor" means.
Re: (Score:3)
Then why are so many Christians so willing to send their neighbor to jail?
Re:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ?? (Score:4, Interesting)
"The Lord above made man to help is neighbor, No matter where, on land, or sea, or foam. The Lord above made man to help his neighbor-but / With a little bit of luck, With a little bit of luck, When he comes around you won't be home! "
Re: (Score:3)
What a cop out. Religions and churches are all about community and organizing the community often to do charitable works but suddenly when it's the government representing the community it's all about individualism. It's also a very american, you'll find churches and christian political parties everywhere else in the world more than willing to support government programs to combat poverty.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ?? (Score:4, Insightful)
uhhh, what?
Oh, yeah, I forgot: Christian-Bashing is the last acceptable and politically-correct form of prejudice and ignorant hatred.
Carry on.
Fat people. Don't forget the fatties. You can slam us... er... them too all you want.
Re:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ?? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's pot smokers who are politically acceptable targets of prejudice and ignorant hatred. Come back when you can get thrown in jail if you're caught with a cross.
Re: (Score:3)
uhhh, what?
Oh, yeah, I forgot: Christian-Bashing is the last acceptable and politically-correct form of prejudice and ignorant hatred.
Homosexuals are still fighting for equality.
Many people proudly claim that they don't trust atheists, and in a recent gallup poll have stated that they would never vote for one.
And there was outcry a year ago, not just over an Islamic community center with a prayer room being built within walking distance of ground zero, but, in my home state, there was also vandalism over a new mosque being built in Memphis Tennessee. (It was on the Daily Show. The Muslims building the mosque had been there 20 years, and w
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that marijuana is 100% safe isn't enough to sway the screaming, mindless Christians
Oh, yeah, I forgot: Christian-Bashing is the last acceptable and politically-correct form of prejudice and ignorant hatred.
I don't think GP was bashing Christians. He was bashing the mindless, screaming ones opposed to marijuana. Which, by definition, are mindless. The Christians that are not mindless, are not screaming, and are not opposed to marijuana, he's not bashing them.
Surely you don't deny the existence of very stupid Christians. I've met some. I'm of the opinion that they're entitled to vote, believe whatever they want, including religion. They can even believe prohibition works when clearly it doesn't. That'
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, yeah, I forgot: Christian-Bashing is the last acceptable and politically-correct form of prejudice and ignorant hatred.
Hardly. Quit crying until Christians quit bashing atheists or pagans or anyone else they feel is a godless heathen. You're not even remotely close to the bottom of the pile.
Re:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ?? (Score:5, Insightful)
I hold your freedom to worship as you choose sacred. I hold my freedom to speak my mind about your religion sacred.
Call it malicious if you like, but I think calling Easter 'Zombie Jesus Day' is funny, and will continue to do so.
Re: (Score:3)
100% Safe? Really? I guess there is some magical property of marijuana smoke that heals your lungs as you inhale it. Awesome.
Well, as far as lung cancer goes, that is exactly the case [sciencedaily.com].
Moving to LSD. (Score:2, Funny)
Legalization will take all the fun out of it. I'll have to just start using more LSD I guess.
Re:Moving to LSD. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Great... first it was Hercules, then CGA, EGA, VGA, DVI, HDMI, DisplayPort, mini-DisplayPort, Thunderbolt... screw that, I'm done. I'm not switching to LSD.
Re:Moving to LSD. (Score:5, Funny)
I'll switch if it does 1080p.
Re: (Score:3)
You should be using LSD already. All of the positive effects of an intense spiritual experience without the woo-woo of religion. Psilocybin [sciencemag.org] works too.
if we're going to enthuse about LSD and psiloybin (Score:4, Insightful)
let's act responsibly:
1. get a babysitter. people walk out windows, gouge out their eyeballs, and pick up knives and start swinging when on strong hallucinogens. people have panic attacks and think they are dying. you are highly suggestible, so you can be warded away from a bad trip by a good guide. so you need a sober responsible person who can keep you safe. maybe return the favor. but don't trip alone, and don't trip in groups, and don't trip with irresponsible people as your backup
2. be aware of the phenomenon of flashbacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysergic_acid_diethylamide#Flashbacks_and_HPPD [wikipedia.org]
i'm not engaging in fear and hysteria. you need a sober understanding of what you are playing with here. go ahead and trip, but understand that these hallucinogens are very powerful. if you have a flashback a few days later while driving, and you are aware of what is going on, you can deescalate the situation. if you don't know about flashbacks, you can freak out and kill yourself or others. knolwedge is power. be educated
because what is the victim of irresponsible drug use? legality is. lsd and magic mushrooms will be legalized someday, but that day will be very far away if irresponsible idiots keep tripping without backups and walk out windows or stab innocent passerbys
be responsible, or you ruin it for the rest of us
Contact your representative! (Score:5, Insightful)
The chances of this bill passing are fairly remote, but it's still important to contact your senator and express your support if you think this is a good idea. Congress should hear that punishing people for marijuana use is a waste of time and money.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I think Alcohol is also a problem (I used to drink myself and have friends that still do) before you break out that argument.
So to be clear... You'd be okay with bringing back prohibition given a chance?
Would you seriously think yourself entitled to send me to jail if I have a beer at home in this ideal world of yours?
If you think it's bad (and hey, you'd be right) don't use it. Regardless, you have no business using force (law enforcement in this case) to enforce that opinion of yours on others.
Not legalize (Score:2)
But rather decriminalize at the Federal Level.
Distinct difference.
Still up to the states to act.
Also, hope we free the thousands of prisoners.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Paul-Barney? (Score:4, Funny)
As usual, summary is wrong (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:As usual, summary is wrong (Score:5, Informative)
So it removes the federal laws against marijuana, legalizing marijuana federally. Got it.
Re: (Score:3)
It also legalizes it anywhere that states don't have control, unless the local controlling body has laws that keep it illegal, i.e. D.C., reservations, territories, etc. Right?
Re:As usual, summary is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Any Tea Party person, or person who has been bitching about states rights in the last decade should be thrown out of office if they don't vote for it.
Every politician who said it's OK for the state to tell brown people to carry there papers that doesn't vote for this should be called to task and fired.
This is where you see who cares about states rights, and who wraps the self in the Constitution just to garner votes and as an excuse to by a selfish prick.
Not a complete solution (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
This is based on the fact that salvia is currently not listed on any federal schedule but has been individually criminalized in several states.
I'm curious. Which states have criminalized saliva?
And, do you smoke it or what?
Re:Not a complete solution (Score:5, Insightful)
And if this passed, everything would go swimmingly until someone inserted a provision in the next budget denying highway funding to states that allow recreational marijuana.
This is why we can't have nice things, America.
Re: (Score:3)
Like all good legislation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It may not ever pass through committee, however if you take just 5 minutes to send a message to your Senators and Representatives telling them to support this b
Show your support here.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Show your support here... [convio.net]
Marijuana Policy Project Wikipedia Page [wikipedia.org]
How about making cigarettes illegal instead? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Cigarettes are legal for the same reason Marijuana is illegal.
Tobacco farmers and cigarette-company executives aren't Mexican.
Re: (Score:3)
Admissions (Score:2)
I won't hold my breath (Score:2)
It failed. I didn't bother to look at the breakdown of the votes, but I do know that some in the stoner community were dead set against it. Why? Because laws against pot weren't enforced where they were, so they weren't seeing any direct benefit, while legalizing it would make it taxable and open up competition. Nevermind that people elsewhere in the state were being arrested for it, nevermind that kids were losing their ability to g
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I won't hold my breath (Score:5, Insightful)
I can only conclude that pot smokers are too dumb to get pot legalized.
It is not just about pot smokers. Anyone who does not want to live in a society where law enforcement agencies are paramilitary forces, where property is appraised before the property owner is arrested, and where the government is using popular TV shows as a means of spreading propaganda should support ending the war on drugs. Anyone who thinks that it is a problem for the DEA to have the power to declare a drug illegal without congressional action, or for our nuclear command and control system to be used to track drug smugglers should support ending the war on drugs.
Unfortunately, we have been engaged in the war on drugs for so long that nobody can even remember that there was a time when things were not this way.
Highly unlikely to pass (Score:2)
Too many out there that have demonized it and more still that have bought in to that propaganda.
If passed, it could very well see an increase in tax revenue and a decrease in crime.
If passed, it would no longer be as expensive, there by reducing some of the crime that is said to be from people committing the crimes to pay for their pot. The states would get a revenue boost as it would likely be taxed like tobacco.
We'll see.
Sadly it has no chance... (Score:4)
This wont go anywhere even though the wording of the Bill should actually be attractive to states like Texas, Missouri, etc that are decidedly conservative but are currently suing over "obamacare" on the basis of states rights. This simply lifts federal law and puts the issue in the states hands as it should be...but there is far too much money in the "war on drugs". The prison industry and law enforcement agencies at both the state and federal level rely on the war on drugs far to heavily to just let it go without a major fight. People tend to forget that the US has the largest prison population per capita of any country in the world (including all the govt's considered oppressive and anti-human rights) that simply isn't sustainable without the endless war going on.
Too Early. 2018 More Likely. But Inevitable (Score:3)
It does not go far enough (Score:3)
Re:It does not go far enough (Score:4, Interesting)
AS soon as all drugs where legalized, the gang problem will go away. Large corporations will grow it, makes in, manufactures cheaper, faster and with precise dosage. Gangs can even hope to keep up.
Tax it, put money into rehap, stop putting non violent offenders in prison.
Re: (Score:3)
More likely to pass than in the past (Score:3)
Drug laws have always been used as a quick method of imprisoning undesirables like black people, poor people, Hispanics, and people who break their eggs a the small end. While we now have much more sophisticated methods (e.g. the patriot act), drug laws still give law enforcement a tool\excuse to keep down those annoying [Fill in the blank] people. While our "leadership" won't want to give that up, imprisonment is expensive, and pot keeps the [Fill in the blank] people passive, so there's at least a better chance of decriminalization than there used to be.
The illegal plant (Score:3)
Every time this subject comes up I am just shaking my head and do not understand: how can any government make a plant illegal? This includes mushrooms, cacti, salvia divinorum (still not illegal at most places), and other psychoactive substances.
I am even more shocked when I see religious groups (Christians) going again an in fact rather useful plant. Why? Well, if these plants are the forbidden fruit, please revise your book. If not, live with the fact that your God put it on the planet so you can some it, eat it or make clothes from it.
I am strongly pro marijuana, especially for medical use. It is a lot safer pain medication that most pills/shots that you can take.
I also believe, that it is a lot better recreational drug than alcohol. It turns people into Earth loving peaceful hippies, while alcohol makes people aggressive. But government and big business does not like these properties: they want people sick, fighting and in jail, because there is more money in these things. Pot makes you sit home, watch movies, eat cookies and love. This is somehow something they should be banning.
Is there any logic in this?
Additionally: when people buy their drugs on the street, they tend to buy larger quantities, so they end up with drugs at home. When you have it, you use it. As opposed to this, when you can get a joint legally at any time, you do not have to stack up, you can buy one on Friday night, go out (or stay in), and you do not end up with any storage.
With pot legal, you could openly buy a high quality vaporizer, that eliminates a lot of the carcinogens compared to smoking, that relies on combustion. This would make pot even safer, more suitable for medical use as well. The last thing you want to introduce into a cancerous body is more carcinogens to kill pain.
Just my 2c :)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe this is more news for "turned on nerds". Here's a hint, though. Coca cola and Warcraft are not a mind-altering substances.
Re: (Score:3)
I always find it funny when people with six (or even seven) digit UID's make claims about how slashdot used to be.
Re: (Score:2)
really? still same old jokes???
lame....
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect it's because the part of the war that most people support ending is the part about marijuana. Most people really don't care if heroin, cocaine or amphetamine are illegal. It's also a big step toward saner drug laws.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
go after cocaine, heroin, pcp etc
Funny how the only reason those were made illegal was overt racism...
Those kill people
So do pharmaceuticals, and more importantly, America's favorite recreational drugs: alcohol and tobacco.
The war on drugs is, in general, an attack on American freedoms, for the benefit of big businesses, racists, and a few social conservatives. It has never been about public health, nor will it ever be about health.
Re: (Score:3)
Many drugs can cause immediate addiction
[citation needed]
cocaine, yeah, the upper middle class white mans drug. There some mighty racism right there.
You forget that cocaine was made illegal nearly a century ago. Times have changed. Here is what the New York Times was saying about cocaine circa 1914:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60B14F7345F13738DDDA10894DA405B848DF1D3 [nytimes.com]
Re:Tip of the Iceberg (Score:4, Interesting)
I know I'm a radical in this matter (as in many) but I'd legalize all of them. Yes, if you want to, shoot that heroin up your vein, for all I care everyone has the right to kill himself in the way he prefers. Slow and painful with drugs, hey, if that's your venue, more power to you.
Keep it out of the hands of kids, make sure that school teach about the risks (and please, not the "say no to drugs" bull that's been circulated. Inform, don't try to scare, kids are smarter than that) and if they still want to get hooked after they turn into adults, let them. Who are we to dictate how a person may kill himself? Make sure drugs are available and affordable and if people want to throw their life in the gutter, at least they won't go around mugging others for money to finance it.
Re:At the same time.. (Score:4, Funny)
3. SELLING or BUYING it (or any other naturally occurring psychoactive substance*) should be illegal.
If you attempt to take away my ability to purchase coffee, I WILL KILL YOU!
Re:Gotta get that... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Plants belong to the States (Score:4, Interesting)
Please explain how it is "perfectly" constitutional. The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . .” . Are you going to claim that the regulation of plants falls under the general welfare?
Recall that the Constitution grants powers. And only those powers granted by the Constitution are supposed to be exercised by the US government.