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.

Comments

Obama's too conservative

[DogDude]

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.

Re:Obama's too conservative

[causality]

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:Obama's too conservative

[Gaygirlie]

Maybe 90%... you wouldn't want to operate machinery

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.

The few potheads I've seen who have been smoking pot more-or-less on a daily basis for several years are themselves rather definite proof that smoking pot DOES affect your ability to, well, do almost anything.

Re:Obama's too conservative

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, correlation is NOT causation! Several studies have found that people with schizophrenia have a higher likelihood of using A WIDE VARIETY of drugs, especially in the early stages of their illness, prior to diagnosis.

Which is more believable:
* marijuana causes schizophrenia (somehow?)
or
* schizophrenics are more likely to use drugs in general than the rest of the population (in an attempt to self medicate?)

Re:Obama's too conservative

[MaskedSlacker]

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:Obama's too conservative

[mistiry]

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.

Re:Obama's too conservative

[MaskedSlacker]

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 that you had to stand outside for 45 minutes? Dear christ, call the fucking waambulance. There are legitimate reasons to be upset when someone sets fire to a building, but whining about having to stand outside reveals you as the petty drama queen you are.

Hopefully in the near feature some form of preventative control can be implemented that reduces the frequency of death that occurs due to chemical impairment that is generally accepted.

They're called ignition interlocks, and they exist already (and in some states are mandated for those with DUI convictions). What I hope for, is that assholes like you die off sooner than the rest of us.

Re:Obama's too conservative

[causality]

There comes a point at which you have to draw a line. Personally, my ideal world would be one in which no one had any desire for chemical stimulus. Alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, everything has health risks. In regards to my own body I think those risks are too high.

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.

There are many people who can drink responsibly, but there are many more who kill people in drunk driving accidents every year.

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.

The cold fact of ANY mind-altering substance is just that, it's a mind-altering substance. An altered state of mind could be extremely dangerous in certain situations - driving, caring for children, even using a stove.

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.

Back in my college dorm a few guys almost burned down the building because they were high. When the pizza they ordered arrived they threw it in the oven, box and all. 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.

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.

You might call it wallowing in ignorance, but some people are a danger to others. That's just a fact of life. We as a society generally accept the concept of putting a psychopathic killer in a mental institution or even just denying a driver's license to someone who has physically impaired perception or reflexes.

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.

It's just like any responsibility of the state, to protect as many people's freedoms as possible. Your free will ma

Re:Obama's too conservative

[tinkerghost]

The fact that marijuana is 100% safe

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

[Mr. Slippery]

There comes a point at which you have to draw a line.

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.

Personally, my ideal world would be one in which no one had any desire for chemical stimulus.

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:Obama's too conservative

[IICV]

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

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.

Contact your representative!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ??

[RobotRunAmok]

uhhh, what?

Oh, yeah, I forgot: Christian-Bashing is the last acceptable and politically-correct form of prejudice and ignorant hatred.

Carry on.

Re:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ??

[darien.train]

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" ??

[Broken scope]

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:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ??

[Flyerman]

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:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ??

[justaguylikeme]

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" ??

[Hatta]

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:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ??

[RoccamOccam]

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

Re:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ??

[Grizzley9]

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:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ??

[JudgeFurious]

Christians in the US are insufferable when it comes to claiming that they're persecuted and being attacked from all sides. They're everywhere, you can't walk 100 yards in a straight line without running into a church, they have whole television networks dedicated to their cult, mega-churches seating thousands, and they wield their collective voting power like a giant gold-plated dildo ready to fuck brutally anybody who doesn't vote for what their "jeebus" wants but we're all supposed to believe that they're the constant victims of a world that's out to get them. They want everyone to think the rest of us are still feeding them to lions instead of trying to live our own lives and ignoring them.

Re:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ??

[Zaphod-AVA]

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.

Like all good legislation

[hsjserver]

This one will die before it leaves committee.

Show your support here....

[gQuigs]

Show your support here...

Marijuana Policy Project Wikipedia Page

Re:Not a complete solution

[StikyPad]

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.

Follow the pork. And the power.

[jcr]

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

Re:I won't hold my breath

[betterunixthanunix]

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.

Re:As usual, summary is wrong

[geekoid]

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.

Re:Gotta get that...

[n1ywb]

Strong arm the market? Around here (Vermont) I suspect most stoners would go straight down to their local farmers' market or CSA farm stand or food co-op to buy their weed, just like they do for their vegetables. Or grow their own. Only real dirtbags would seriously go down to 7-11 to buy a pack of Marlboro Greens and a sixer of Bud. And if they do, whatever, their choice. I really don't think it's necessary or effective to make restoring our liberty vis a vis MJ with some sort of crazy socialist anti-industrial agenda. The MJ market will demand a locally grown boutique product. Think of how craft breweries have nabbed such a big share of the beer market despite a huge, well financed, and well entrenched legacy brewing industry.

if we're going to enthuse about LSD and psiloybin

[circletimessquare]

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