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.

3 of 688 comments (clear)

  1. Re:As usual, summary is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

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

  2. Re:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ?? by geekoid · · 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.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  3. Re:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ?? by Mr.+Slippery · · 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"? 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.

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood