Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
I don't respond to AC's.
Legalization will take all the fun out of it. I'll have to just start using more LSD I guess.
I understand it may be something that matters to some of /.
But how... exactly... is this "News for Nerds?"
Something witty.
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.
But rather decriminalize at the Federal Level.
Distinct difference.
Still up to the states to act.
Also, hope we free the thousands of prisoners.
There is way too many people making way too much money off of prohibition for this law to pass.
Shouldn't the heading read Paul-Frank? Or is Barney just that much more fun to say?
uhhh, what?
Oh, yeah, I forgot: Christian-Bashing is the last acceptable and politically-correct form of prejudice and ignorant hatred.
Carry on.
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 (and others).
Let's try for some accuracy here. It's not all that hard. You'd think the editors were stoned or something.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
How is this going to "End the failed war on drugs finally"? The "war" is over more than just marijuana.
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.)
Gross. Mod down.
This one will die before it leaves committee.
really? still same old jokes???
lame....
Show your support here...
Marijuana Policy Project Wikipedia Page
Yeah, why don't you go and do just that.
Let us know how well it works out for you.
and thus end the failed war on drugs finally if it gets passed.
It's a beautiful dream, but sadly there are many other "drugs" that need to be legalised, besides marijuana, before the war on drugs can be declared over:
Cocaine
Heroin
LSD
Ecstasy
DMT
Amphetamines
Of course, if this bill did pass (which I seriously doubt), it would be a very welcome step in the right direction.
Peace,
Andy.
Our Founding Fathers saw the United States as an "experiment in democracy". The original idea was to allow states to try different things and the best ideas would rise to the surface. Lately, we seem to want to run everything on a federal level including health care instead of letting the different states come up with their own plans and letting them learn from each others experiences.
This bill gets back to our roots as it would allow the various states to regulate marijuana as each state sees fit. I'm all for it. I do not want marijuana legalized in my state but I'm perfectly willing to accept that I may be wrong in my judgment/s and if another state would like to try legalizing it, that is their choice and I'd love to see how it works out.
Not a high enough cancer rate to be illegal?
Let's not forget that our illustrious leader had admitted to partaking in such forbiden activity as a youth (tongue in cheek). Seriously, I would like to see something legal go head to head with alchohol as a recreational substance and judge then whether it is a positive or not.
Here in California, we just voted on a referendum to legalize pot.
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 get financial aid, nevermind that they have a responsibility to pay taxes. Those dumb fucks voted against it.
I can only conclude that pot smokers are too dumb to get pot legalized. Meanwhile, the voters were too stupid to realize that California's biggest crop being taxed AND law enforcement not having to regulate a victimless crime could probably go a decent way toward sorting out the budget woes. Several law enforcement groups came out in favor of it for logical reasons. But the voters just said no.
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.
just legalize it already!
And, NO! I'm not going to go right out and buy it even if it is decriminalized, OR, even legalized. This despite the availability of it whilst it is presently illegal. And to boot, 95% of the people I work worth will probably won't go out and buy it either if status does change. However, I would like the RIGHT to if its available.
Not a chance in hell. The Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act that Frank has been submitting for a decade never gets out of committee, and it's much less broad-minded than this bill.
It's nice to see that somebody is at least trying, but we're not even close to have to worry about a veto.
From his comments I don't think Obama would have a problem signing this. My impression of his opinion is "Yeah. It shouldn't be illegal, but it's not worth spending political capital to make that happen." If it didn't cost him anything, he'd approve.
Puts cops out of work....
...then they'll turn to crime ( what else do they know )
I have always like Ron Paul, even though I usually vote Democrat. I think he deserves Kudos for consistently extending ideas like personal liberty, small government, and fiscal responsibility to areas that most other Republicans decide not to, like drug usage and military spending.
I'm not a toker. Did it a little during high school years and I'm guessing I never got "the good stuff" because it never really did anything for me or to me. (Then again, I don't get an "energy burst" from caffeine either... a lot of stuff doesn't seem to affect me as it does others.) And frankly, marijuana stinks to high heaven when smoked. But I support its legalization... making it illegal is just plain stupid.
I have heard that marijuana is often laced with other drugs, however and that alone would be enough for cops/feds to want to seize and test any marijuana discovered. The only hope it could have (if it's any hope at all) would be for the government to license the sale of marijuana the same way cigarettes are licensed so at least there would be some indication that it is a "legitimate" and inspected product less likely to have been tampered with.
I know, you can still buy tobacco and roll your own cigarettes... and lace the tobacco if you really wanted to, but cops wouldn't suspect tobacco so much.
The reason that Obama reneged on his promises w/r/t the drug war, is that the drug war is an enormous pork-barrel scheme. It provides a pretext for billions of dollars of spending, as well as providing bribe money at all levels of local and state government, from cops on the beat to mayors, to state legislators.
Besides that, the drug war amounts to universal criminalization: cops can get away with breaking into anyone's home and killing them if they pretend to have done so on the basis of an anonymous tip that there were drugs in the house in question.
I'm not surprised that Dr. Paul is in favor of ending the drug war, but I didn't think Barney Frank had the guts. Good for them.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I was going to post with insight from my teenage years of coughing and eating brownies,
how i'm older now and yadayadayada, fuck that, pot is nothing for the amount of money and time we waste to it, i say let california legalize it and watch pot dealers go out of buisness, problem solved, now we can get back to the war on "DRUGS". Pot makes you slow and lazy, go after cocaine, heroin, pcp etc. Those kill people and get people killed. Society would do the same as it does now when met face-to-face with pot: laugh.
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.
They need a congressional bill in order to abide by this statement...
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Constitution does not delegate to the US government powers over living organisms belonging to the kingdom Plantae.
They should outlaw tobacco. I would switch tomorrow, even if the weed cost 3x as much, because there's no way I could smoke as much weed as I do tobacco. There would be no point in doing so. Just as there is very little point in smoking tobacco at all, thank you Marlboro Man and Joe Camel.
1. They should legalize the USE of marijuana (adults)
2. They should legalize the GROWING of marijuana for "personal use" (adults)
3. SELLING or BUYING it (or any other naturally occurring psychoactive substance*) should be illegal.
Everybody who wanted to could grow whatever they wanted, and give it away, or trade it. If I knew I could get away with growing my own, I would start tonight, quit tobacco (and probably alcohol too), and be a much happier person. And if you asked for some, I'd give it freely.
JMHO
* and a few synthetics ~8
That is, "legalize marijuana". By default, everything is legal. Things are only illegal by statute or case law.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
The ratio of pro-legalizers under the voting age is high, and number of people against legalization who are over 80 (with high voting participation) is high. Once the Viet Nam vets are retired and the WW2 vets have passed on, marijuana will be legalized, probably in combination with a bill to tax it to raise money for something specific. My bet is on 2018, but it won't be more than 20 years. Having a black president seemed kind of a remote possibility less than ten years ago, I frankly would have bet legal pot would have come first. Then we will all get high.
Gently reply
Strange bedfellows indeed.
Gotta get that stoner vote! I really wish legislation could stop during an election year. This way dog & pony show politics would just end. Although, in this case, it may serve an actual purpose, that of getting legalization legitimately on the table, even if it doesn't get votes.
If I voted, however, I would not support a bill like this unless they had rules limiting the power of well-established pharmaceutical and tobacco industry companies being able to strong-arm the market. Their entry should be controlled and gradual, due to the immense power they wield and because the smaller industries in places such as California incurred much greater risk to (legally) enter the market first and shouldn't be subject to a quick and fast monopoly.
The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
Project MKULTRA was one of the CIA's many ventures into providing drugs to Americans.
It should legalize all drugs, but then allow ZERO IMPORTS AND ZERO EXPORTS. If we do that, we can stop the gangs and drug lords. More importantly, we can cut way back on prison, and spend money (from taxes) on taking care of addicts and chasing the remaining gangs/drug lords.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Oh, there's plenty of things for cops to do. But maybe they could actually do that instead.
I mean, let's be serious, what's more interesting for you: A cop chasing down some pothead or a cop chasing down some robber? Personally, I want him to chase the robber. That pothead doesn't affect me. The robber might if I happen to be his next target.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Barney Frank smokes something, and it isn't pot!
NO, he isn't pushing it because the Pubs have attacked him so much, he couldn't do anything else if he tried. The pubs would stop the government, again.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
- Legalize Marijuana Federally the beer and liquor Industry who control the "get high legally" market will do everything in their power to prevent this from happening if not already. Hide your babies and daughters people using marijuana can't be controlled. Ok maybe not your daughters cuz they probably already smoke it.
The reason that Obama reneged on his promises w/r/t the drug war, is that the drug war is an enormous pork-barrel scheme.
Or that there is no real political will to legalize it, and substantial opposition to it. Passing healthcare reform may end up costing him the election, it seems to have cost the house. I would have been annoyed at Obama for wasting political capitol on it. If marijuana users want it to be legal, they need to fight for it, pester their law makers. Expecting someone else to do it for them, or just waiting until absolutely no one who votes is actually opposed to marijuana is going to take an extremely long time, and is just plain lazy.
Besides that, the drug war amounts to universal criminalization: cops can get away with breaking into anyone's home and killing them if they pretend to have done so on the basis of an anonymous tip that there were drugs in the house in question.
They'd still be able to do that with any of the other drugs that are never going to be legalized. Law enforcement is also not 100% in favor of continued pot prohibition.
I don't think there's a conspiracy here, I think it's just pot smokers aren't doing anything to win their rights back.
If this passes, I'm worried that it might cause me to start using cigarettes and alcohol.
You would think, but them consider this.
All those hippies from to 60s have been voting age for decades. The neo-cons view it as immoral, and as such they shoot it down, even though polls show the majority of Americans wouldn't care if it was removed from the federal list.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I dont think your reasoning for Obama's motives is correct. For sure he does not profit from that pork barrel, and there are the other massive benefits.
1. Drug Company/tabacco/Famers having a whole new market with huge growth potential.
2. The taxing revenues from sale.
3. The reduction of costs for holding people in jail for smoking (really, it was a stupid idea from the start, didn't we learn anything from prohibition!)
3a. The cost of the law enforcement and legal cost prosecuting smokers.
4. Cutting the financial legs out from the organized crime organizations.
5. Re-energizing of the Lava Lamp market.
So an the is a jobs bill as well as a budget reduction bill.
It's not even going to make it out of the committee which means that it's not even going to get a chance to get discussed on the house floor. Besides with all the right wing christian nut jobs in the house it wouldn't get passed that anyhow. Though I'm glad to see they are trying.
Crime is down. remove drugs, then we really wouldn't need as many Cops. Personally, I see that has a good thing.
hmm, that sounded bad. More precise: The fewer police that are needed, the healthier society tends to be.
Besides, if cops are laid off, they can open there own pot shop.
So really, it's creating Jobs... better paying jobs, probably.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Drug prohibition is making a lot of people in very high places very rich. Am I implying that the underlying objective with prohibition is simply profit, and that every single "drug warrior" in the business of government is working purely for himself, and not "society" as he claims? You're damn right I am.
5. Re-energizing of the Lava Lamp market.
This is, of course, a worthy policy goal. But it ignores the much bigger problem: the upcoming ban on inefficient light bulbs which will make it extremely difficult to keep lava lamps in working order.
My bill does no such thing, in fact I don't even have a bill... Oh, b-A-rney, not b-U-rney. Never mind.
-Paul Burney
<?php while ($self != "asleep") { $sheep_count++; } ?>
am/pm is equally stupid as your stone-age units.
Lava lamps use those bulbs as heating devices, so they would still be legal. Only the use of a heater as a light is being regulated.
My doctor says I need weed to get high...
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
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
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
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You mean the Paul-Frank Bill, maybe? Since those are the last names, and that's how bills are usually named.
TWO guys with two first names. Never trust a person with only first names!
You should do a film about responsible zombies. That would be great.
what's the matter?
crawford stopped taking the bait?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
He is too much of a politician to sign a bill like this TILL HIS NEXT TERM.
Just like gay marriage/DOMA he ain't got balls when they might get whacked. He ain't about to do anything controversial prior to 2012. Already he is playing games with troops in Afghanistan to shore up his base and suddenly oil is leaking out of our holdings because.... really this guy really irks me. He doesn't lead, he pontificates then takes credit for someone else doing the work. The to top it off with the responsibility dodge king named Reid who for two years running has refused to submit a budget to the Senate to be debated against any produced by the House.
Figure it this way, if he should get elected to a second term your going to see the real Obama, especially after the 2014 election. He already started talking up controversial issues AFTER losing the House because he could pretend it was the eveeel Republicans who were blocking all his great and fair ideas, discounting the fact for two years Pelosi and Reid did nothing to move anything they didn't want, they simply used Obama's name to slam through anything they wanted and his highness signed off on in taking credit where he thought it worthwhile.
I am all for legalization and releasing all non-violent possession criminals from jail, expunging the charge from their records at the same time. If they are going to keep cigarettes legal and alcohol legal where is their excuse or marijuana?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
They couldn't beat the US, and it went broke trying. It was a better outcome than nuclear apocalypse.
The Drug War (failed) is driving the states to bankruptcy. Where reason has failed, economics will win. You just can't lock these numbers of people up and invest resources on an un-winnable war. It just costs too much.
Legalizing, regulating, and controlling drugs in a sane manner removes the profit for organized crime. Poof.
The inability to see parallels between the war on drugs and the epic failure of Prohibition is something that will puzzle historians for decades.
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 :)
Actually, I'm fairly sure lava lamps use bulbs as both heat and light sources. The heat makes the "lava" churn, but the light is needed to give it that cool glow. Of course, you could replicate the effect with some LED lights and a dedicated heating element, but an incandescent bulb is cheap and effective at doing both.
Squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that. The only reason this guy is complaining about the obnoxious potheads is because it's the obnoxious ones you notice. Potheads that pay taxes and go to work? No way to notice those ones because by definition they're not making a fuss.
I can't blame him though because that's what the media does these days. Take a loud and obnoxious example and parade it around as if it were the norm. All Christians are like Fred Phelps. All people on the right are like Rush Limbaugh. All people on the left are in PETA and are naked in cages protesting animal cruelty. You know - whatever makes good news.
But I will say this: I used to smoke decades ago so I'm familiar with the culture. I think that guy would be absolutely horrified to know how many people around him are high. Horrified.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
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. :)
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Yes we cannabis
high quality post. (are you sure you are in the right forum?)
anyway, listen to what this guy says.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
I mean, I got to hand it to Texas for sticking to their guns and not taking federal money.. oh wait.
Money that, philosophically*, was taken from her citizens? I'd fault states arguing against Federal spending for not taking that money back. Imagine what your state could do if taxes were reversed, for example - if your state was getting 90% of your taxes instead of 10%?
Hell, were that to happen, the Federal government would be perfectly funded (Oh no, less wargasm toys, the horror) while states could even lower taxes and still improve their citizen's lives by orders of magnitude.
* Discounting a number of states, mostly Southern, that tend to suck more money than their citizens pay. See the above for the easy solution to that, however.
"Expecting someone else to do it for them, or just waiting until absolutely no one who votes is actually opposed to marijuana is going to take an extremely long time, and is just plain lazy."
When Obama put up change.gov site to ask for public feedback the response thundered back that the public is opposed to marijuana prohibition and the war on drugs. You are sadly mistaken if you confuse the issues that politicians are generally willing to allow face time (along with the puppet Dem and Rep branded media) with the issues that concern the general public.
"I don't think there's a conspiracy here, I think it's just pot smokers aren't doing anything to win their rights back."
Not everyone who is opposed to marijuana prohibition and the war on drugs is a "Pot Smoker". Some of us don't support government prohibition of any sort of drug and would like to see the FDA step back to a regulating the safe manufacture of drugs and medical advertising claims without actually forbidding any substance from purchase without a prescription.
Obama made his stance pretty clear when the people made marijuana and the war on drugs their #1 issue of concern on change.gov.
Share this story
This story has 420 Comments
Read similar stories with these tags
"Helping to keep you two steps ahead of the Thought Police!"
Flashbacks are over-rated. You will have a lingering effect for a couple days (if you did LOTS of LSD) and then, if you have done LOTS of LSD many times you will see motion trails on objects... potentially for the rest of your life. After those first couple days, if you have them, you are in absolutely no danger of flashbacks. This is from someone who has done hundreds if not thousands of hits of LSD.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2261720&cid=36545928 Is it because you trolled someone http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2253808&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=36521452 and they shot you down on every so called point you tried to make and they did it with documented facts anyone could see? I saw you run like a whipped dog 10 times there in fact, and for starting trouble with others you threaten to blackmail? Very intelligent (not).
It's about time that MJ was legalized. I hope you all realize that by legalizing this, not only are you allowing the medical use of MJ, but saving billions a year (plus who knows how many lives that are taken every year due to this "war on drugs") in enforcement dollars, and time. Also, look up how many uses there were for MJ before it was deemed illegal. Clothing, fibers for a plethora of items, oil that could be burned or use as a high quality lubricant for mechanical devices, literally hundreds of uses. Also, say it was suddenly treated (legally speaking) the same as tobacco. Taxed, regulated, etc. If you think the government make a ton of cash on cigarette taxes, you ain't seen shit yet when MJ starts bringing in the tax dollars. Not saying this will fix the economy by any means, but it WILL save us billions a year, and more than likely generate at least SOME more jobs in a few industries. /rant
Stone
Religion is more a spiritual/emotional experience that maybe doesn't yield to analytic logic. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem when 'religious' people treat religion as something that adheres to rigorous logic and hard episodic fact.
I'd say that if you believe their rights have been unjustly taken away, it's your civic duty to be vocal in supporting their return.
In addition, the non-toking public should be pushing to legalize marijuana because it is a money-saving measure whose benefits far outweigh any theoretical costs, and the US needs to find lots of ways to save money. The ripple effect it would have on the violent drug trade in Mexico is another of its many selling points.
Your brain is not a computer.
Either we ought to be trying to protect people from themselves or we ought to be letting people deal with the consequences of their actions.
I think drugs ought to be legal but their use should be legally construed as pre-mediation of any actions taken while under their influence. If you want the right to do whatever you want with your body you need to take responsibility for it (with almost non-existent exceptions). If a guy gets drunk and beats his kids to death he is just as immoral as a gang-banger that guns them down in cold blood or an LSD user that runs them over when they have a flashback while driving. If you want the privileges of being what I would consider an adult you should have the responsibility as well. I would also be for the receiving of all government social services being contingent of not taking any drugs as I really shouldn't have to pay for others poor decisions.
There is one other way that I could think of that drugs could be legalized and I would be agree with it, in one word Coventry. If we presume that people are unable to take responsibility for their own actions then the only thing left to us is for us to take responsibility for there actions. I would be for the construction of a set of government run "brothels" where those things deemed destructive to society were legal. The catch is that you should not be allowed to re-enter society (leave the facility in this case) until the negative effects had worn off. I would be fine for this on many social problems prostitution, drugs and alcohol all become moot problems in my mind if the effects are limited. Make sure the costs to run it are included in the cost of the drugs/act and it would even be self-sustaining. I am unsure of how some drugs like LSD could ever be made economically feasible as with something like flashbacks you would probably have to be there forever but as long as everyone knows whats going on when they sign up for it I am OK with it.
Of course that's just what I think,
How is it prejudice? Drug prohibition is something the Christians have already done. Past tense. Are you saying that judging people for things they've already done, is the new definition of "prejudice?" And being aware of it, is "ignorance?"
probably in combination with a bill to tax it to raise money for something specific.
As far as I'm aware there is already a tax on marijuana and has been one since the moment they outlawed it. It is the failure to pay this tax, which they do not make possible to be paid, which makes possession of the drug a crime (and not the using of the drug).
Here is just one more reason for me to love Ron Paul. I believe he is one of the last true leaders that we have left in Congress and about the only person I would vote for President. Oh yeah, and Barney Frank can suck it. The condescending tone he used to his constituents during the Obamacare town halls just gave me another reason to hate his guts.
It won't happen so long as corporations are being paid to keep people in prison.
"Hanf - das miliar kraut" This movie showing how US make propaganda about hemp and why hemp is good for industry, but corporations don't want use it.
Recipes for USA bankrupt - http://tinypaste.com/0d66f dd = dollar deluge (printed in the infinity)
Couldn't they achieve the same ends by simply admitting the obvious: Cannabis should be Schedule II because it has medical use?
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Marijuana usage isn't 100% safe. It can cause or speed up the development of schizophrenia:
http://www.livescience.com/10700-marijuana-worsens-schizophrenia.html.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2005559,00.html
I still agree with you that it should be legalized. The war on drugs is a lost cause, and causes more problems than in solves. But making false claims doesn't help in this discussion.
Personally, I think marijuana should be treated like tobacco: just sell it legally, put a warning on it about the health hazards, and tax it to pay for the resulting medical costs.
"Money is a sign of poverty." - Iain Banks
"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."
No. it is actually highly culturally correlated, and Religious culture are in average more cahritable than secular one. I don't have much reference to give for this, but you can google around. For example : Example
If Jesus was a real person* *highly unlikely.
Actually jesus Christ almost certainly never existed except in the myth and legend of a group of religious folk. By Jesus without the Christ part Most likely existed. Sure we have next to no solid evidence of that (look up on wiki, and be astounded by the "criteria of embarassement" and other etxtual criticism and laugh and cry) but the weak evidence is good enough to say Jesus (no christ) msot likely existed. That does not mean 100% sure. But most historien scholar agree it was likely Jesus existed. To what extent between 50% and 100% (100 excluded) that is is a questionof perspective, in my opinion the evidence are much much too weak to be too near 100%.
So yes. Whereas I agree on your point that social program is certainly a reflection on "love thy neighbor", the rest of what you said was incorrect.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
the chances of kids today tripping safely are about as high as LulzSec pressing the hack button safely.
no one asked you for permission. go eat another big mac.
It is only 100% safe for those who stay away from it. Otherwise it is addictive and definitely prejudicial to the social and mental health. That said I'm for the legalization just because the harm to the society will be smaller that way. The only people who could believe marijuana is "light" because it is natural are childish hippies.
would never sign it.
If marijuana users want it to be legal, they need to fight for it, pester their law makers.
It's not just users that want it to be legal. I've never had any form of illegal drugs, ever. However, I still want it to be legal.
I want it legalized because I think that the enforcement of drug laws in regards to marijuana are for more destructive to people's lives than marijuana itself. Being illegal makes for a potentially less safe for product for those that do use. Enforcement, prosecution and punishment is costing us way too much of our tax money, plus we're losing tax revenue from it's sales on top of that!
It's an all around losing deal to society to keep it illegal.
So it removes the federal laws against marijuana, legalizing marijuana federally.
No, if it was legalized federally, then state laws criminalizing marijuana would be overridden by the federal law legalizing it. Removing the federal law lets the states choose what they want to do, so any state could still criminalize it.
This is the converse of how it is today, where federal laws criminalizing marijuana override state laws legalizing it, so you get federal raids on medical dispensaries.
Well I think I'll submit a patent for a solar powered Lava Lamp. Free energy for both purposes. Just think of the jobs that will create!
You actually think people made marijuana and the war on drugs their #1 issue, or was that from a concerted campaign by to skew the vote. I have not seen nor heard that that was a major concern of anyone ever. Posibly the war on addictive, destructive drugs like crack cocaine and heroine but marijuana is neither addicting nor destructive in any meaningful way. My points were that the savings from persuing and prosecurting victimless crimes associated with marijuana were not only cost effective, humane, but a source of revenue and job growth.
I agree whole hardedly that hard drugs should be illegal and dealers prosecuted, I don't think anyone has an issue with that and I think that is what people were refering to in change.gov. They are two different things.
We got it decriminalized in Massachusetts based on a popular vote for a binding ballot initiative.
This idea that nobody is doing anything about this is simply false.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
"You actually think people made marijuana and the war on drugs their #1 issue"
I find it odd that you assume... without any indication in my comment to that effect... that the people making it their number 1 issue were anti-marijuana and pro war-on-drugs. Actually people made it their number 1 issue and like you, were by and large opposed to the war on drugs.
Additionally, while the people were against the war on drugs, Obama made it clear he does not support the legalization of marijuana in response.
Horseshit. Get stupid dope laws off the books and our police might actually have the time and resources to, y'know, fight some fucking crime.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
Sorry that would be the logical assumption when it is phrased that way. Most people would not make the War on drugs the issue they were opposed to above all else. The justiposition of the two in the sentence leads to that logical conclusion.
You may be right, He may be smoking money, (but not inhaling)
Well, I know why Barney Frank is behind the bill: News Article
Only the dead have seen the end of War. - Plato
"Sorry that would be the logical assumption when it is phrased that way. Most people would not make the War on drugs the issue they were opposed to above all else."
And yet most people did... have you considered that it is you who is illogical and reality which is not?
"actually most people did" probably was not the case, I suspect the phrasing of the question dictated the result. like
"are you for paying less taxes and eliminating social security?"
Most people if given a choice would pay less taxes but would also not vote for eliminating Social Security, When the issue is "bundled" together to get a result the arguement made by the bundlers is that people are for eliminating Social Security, which is not the case.
"have you considered that it is you who is illogical and reality which is not?" - probably as much as you have. and I don't quite understand this reality which is not illogical. Besides being a double negative, the idea that reality is logical flies in the face of reality.