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

[operagost]

Besides the fact that you're an ignorant troll, it isn't "100% safe". Maybe 90%... you wouldn't want to operate machinery, and I'm sure there are impurities in the smoke that would be harmful to a lesser extent than tobacco.

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

[Hatta]

He won't have to. There is no chance of this ever getting to the president.

Re:Obama's too conservative

[jgtg32a]

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

BTW I am in favor of legalizing it

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

[Servaas]

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:Obama's too conservative

[Hatta]

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

Re:Obama's too conservative

[squidflakes]

100% Safe? Really? I guess there is some magical property of marijuana smoke that heals your lungs as you inhale it. Awesome.

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

[betterunixthanunix]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Re:Obama's too conservative

[bckrispi]

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

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:Obama's too conservative

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

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

Re:Obama's too conservative

[macs4all]

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.

Re:Obama's too conservative

[macs4all]

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.

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 than people who smoke NOTHING. In fact, there is evidence that it may even help COPD patients.

Re:Obama's too conservative

[deapbluesea]

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. 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 http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/job185drugs/cannabis.htm.

While all three of these substances are comparable in terms of causal use, marijuana very clearly stands out from the other two in terms of effects and duration. I don't think it's a strong comparison.

Moving to LSD.

[Anonymous Coward]

Legalization will take all the fun out of it. I'll have to just start using more LSD I guess.

Re:Moving to LSD.

[tepples]

Or you could start doing LDS, but that'd just be mormonic.

Re:Moving to LSD.

[Yvan256]

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.

[Hatta]

You should be using LSD already. All of the positive effects of an intense spiritual experience without the woo-woo of religion. Psilocybin works too.

Re:Moving to LSD.

[click2005]

I'll switch if it does 1080p.

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.

Re:Contact your representative!

[Nikkos]

However you can increase the odds by contacting your Senators and Representatives and telling them unequivocally that if they don't support this legislation, then you don't support them.

Re:Contact your representative!

[Shark]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Not legalize

[aitikin]

Legalizing it at the federal level allows the states to make it illegal within the state. For example, it is illegal to brew your own beer in Alabama, but the federal government legalized production "for personal or family use," however the great state of Alabama (read as sarcastically as possible) considers this to be dangerous and unhealthy. If you really doubt that, there's a great video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVqnUf8NH6g&feature=player_embedded highlighting some of their debate over a bill to allow homebrewing.

Paul-Barney?

[bigjarom]

Shouldn't the heading read Paul-Frank? Or is Barney just that much more fun to say?

As usual, summary is wrong

[ColdWetDog]

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

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

Source (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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:As usual, summary is wrong

[SydShamino]

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

[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.

Not a complete solution

[daedae]

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

Re:Not a complete solution

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Actually, when you smoke the sativa, your saliva dries up.

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.

Re:Not a complete solution

[mmcuh]

Salvia officinalis, garden sage, is a common garden plant and is nice with pork. Salvia divinorum, which is the species that has the hallucinogenic alkaloids, is neither. If anything, it's rumoured to be very difficult to grow.

Like all good legislation

[hsjserver]

This one will die before it leaves committee.

Re:Like all good legislation

[Nikkos]

It's going to be a tough election cycle. The politicians are looking to find ways to make the public like them. While 10 (or even 5) years ago they wouldn't have even dreamed about supporting something like this, groups like LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) are making their voice heard about the ongoing problems with the "War on Drugs."

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 bill, it will at least make them think about it just a bit.

Re:Like all good legislation

[hsjserver]

No, it won't ever leave committee. No one who has to run for reelection wants to be seen as soft on crime and drugs and that's EXACTLY what they'll be seen as if they vote for this thing to move it out of committee. Paul and Frank run in districts at the far right and left of the US political spectrum and can get away with this sort of thing, most of the rest of congress does not.

Re:End the war?

[mikael_j]

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:"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]

Show your support here....

[gQuigs]

Show your support here...

Marijuana Policy Project Wikipedia Page

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.

How about making cigarettes illegal instead?

[dicobalt]

Not a high enough cancer rate to be illegal?

Re:How about making cigarettes illegal instead?

[blair1q]

Cigarettes are legal for the same reason Marijuana is illegal.

Tobacco farmers and cigarette-company executives aren't Mexican.

Re:How about making cigarettes illegal instead?

[bckrispi]

No, he's right. Some of the first marijuana prohibitions were put in place to discourage Mexican migrant laborers from competing with American farmers.

[T]ensions were building in the western and southwestern states regarding the influx of Mexicans to America. Many Mexicans also smoked marijuana to relax after working in the fields. Later in that decade negative tensions grew between the small farms and the large farms that used cheaper Mexican labor. Shortly afterwards the Great Depression came which increased tensions as jobs and resources became more scarce. In 1913 California passed the first state marijuana prohibition law, criminalizing the preparation of hemp and its products, the phrase "Indian Hemp" (Cannabis indica) is sometimes used or "loco weed". Other states followed with marijuana prohibition laws including: Wyoming (1915); Texas (1919); Iowa (1923); Nevada (1923); Oregon (1923); Washington (1923); Arkansas (1923); and Nebraska (1927).

Highly unlikely to pass

[Lord Jester]

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.

Re:I won't hold my breath

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

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

Re:"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.

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:"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.

Sadly it has no chance...

[grapeape]

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.

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:I think they don't get it

[betterunixthanunix]

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:End the war?

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

Ron Paul supports ending prohibition at the federal level for all drugs, but his modus operandi has been to take on things that seem at least somewhat more achievable even if only slightly in his direction. A lot of people, including Pat Robertson, are starting to come around on the unjust brutality of drug laws, especially marijuana, so Paul is attacking it from that angle.

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.

Too Early. 2018 More Likely. But Inevitable

[retroworks]

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.

Re:Tip of the Iceberg

[Opportunist]

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:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ??

[sorak]

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 wanted to build a larger one to accommodate their growing community).

So, please understand that, while the worst we have to offer will mock you, there are other groups who are being discriminated against and denied civil liberties, based on who they are. You are nowhere near oppressed.

It does not go far enough

[WindBourne]

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.

Re:It does not go far enough

[geekoid]

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:It does not go far enough

[fearofcarpet]

FYI what you describe is very close to the situation in the Netherlands. It is "legal" in the sense that the official policy is not to enforce anti-drug laws for up to five plants for personal use or the purchase of five grams from a licensed coffee shop. In turn, the coffee shops can only have something like 200 grams at any given time. The rub is that import and export are illegal and to discourage export, they made growing large quantities illegal, thus the backend of the coffee shops is technically illegal. This gap in the supply chain was immediately filled by gangs, who organize large grow operations in residential areas and glass houses, so the government had to buy fancy remote controlled helicopters with IR cameras to catch them. And then other countries started complaining about drug tourism, so now they want to introduce membership cards to coffee shops to ensure only Dutch residents can buy it, but as the city council of Amsterdam pointed out, that just re-incentivizes street dealing, which was why the coffee shops were allowed in the first place... Anyway, the point is that half-measures and "turning a blind eye" or simple decriminalization just create new problems. Portugal has a pretty good plan: drugs are legal and instead of arresting people, they offer them rehab. If the US decriminalizes pot, and the issue is thrown to the states, they will face the same sort of problems, which the social conservatives will use as "proof" that legalizing drugs is a bad thing, mm kay? (Which, BTW, is exactly what the right-wing government in the Netherlands is doing.)

Just to be clear, I am 100% pro-legalization and use the Netherlands and Portugal as examples of how totally benign pot really is and how absurd any claims that legalized pot will destroy society are. I mean, what, Americans can't hold their drugs as well as Dutch?

Re:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ??

[interkin3tic]

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's fine. They, however, do not have the right to do so without being judged as mindless.

Re:Smart (big) money on NO

[Montezumaa]

Marijuana is not a narcotic. Opioids(morphine and derivatives, such as oxycodone and hydrocodone) are narcotics. I can understand why you have mislabeled marijuana, as the average person tends to use the terms that media and government continually use for a given topic/object, even if it is a misused term. Marijuana is not chemically related to opiates, opioids, or any derivatives that come from narcotics.

I believe it is past time that this failed prohibition be overturned. It would be nice to even get this overturned by way of a constitutional amendment. That way, some idiot politician cannot come back years later and start this failure all over again. Outside of that, this bill could easily get overturned.

I highly doubt this bill will pass. Government would rather keep oppressing people's freedom and choice. Government has gained too much power and income from this ridiculous "War on Drugs." Really, though, I believe that this bill does not go far enough.

The bill should remove all restrictions on the chemicals commonly referred to as "drugs" or "medicine". Put a clause that states that those that become addicted are also responsible to seek and pay for the care from abusing these chemical compounds. Make parents responsible for not allowing their children to use these compounds, outside of a doctor's direction. Finally, the bill should call for the immediate release of all prisoners incarcerated only on drug charges and remove the convictions from their records.

Re:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ??

[geekoid]

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

Yes, Precisely.

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

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

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

*highly unlikely.

Re:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ??

[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" ??

[Hatta]

Then why are so many Christians so willing to send their neighbor to jail?

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.

Re:At the same time..

[Hatta]

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:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ??

[Mr. Slippery]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ??

[Rob the Bold]

'When the bible talks about "loving thy neighbor" it's talking about the person actually doing it.'

"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:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ??

[Danse]

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: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.

More likely to pass than in the past

[gestalt_n_pepper]

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.

Re:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ??

[superwiz]

I don't think those who are abused (or who are on the receiving end of slurs) owe any amount of perspective to those who are doing the abusing.

Re:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ??

[superwiz]

What does that have to do with legalizing pot?

Re:I think they don't get it

[betterunixthanunix]

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

Re:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ??

[AngryDeuce]

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

No actually, that would be overweight people.

Re:Plants belong to the States

[vinn01]

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.

Re:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ??

[IICV]

Oh for fucks sake. Quit feeling persecuted. To be an American president you at least have to pay lip service to Jesus.

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, 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.

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

Re:How is this news for nerds?

[kju]

I always find it funny when people with six (or even seven) digit UID's make claims about how slashdot used to be.

Re:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ??

[ThurstonMoore]

From the fourth book of Acts

The Believers Share Their Possessions

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

I think Jesus and his posse were Socialists

Re:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ??

[slimjim8094]

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:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ??

[wizardforce]

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" ??

[Grishnakh]

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 "mainstream Protestants") have been totally sidelined by the mega-church-going fundamentalists, both in political power and in numbers. According to public statistics, there are more fundamentalists Christians in America these days than mainsteam Protestants, and their numbers are growing fast, while the mainstreamers are dying out or converting (typically, the old ones are dying out while the young ones are converting).

And yes, it's the fundies who constantly scream about persecution, even though they're putting as much energy and money as they can into persecuting gays.

It's also important to note that this is mostly a U.S. phenomenon; in almost all the other countries where Christianity is the dominant religion, it's either Catholicism (which is rather wacky itself really, between the prohibitions on birth control and the molestation by priests), or mainstream Protestantism. It's only in the USA where you have giant congregations of fundamentalists screaming about gays and global warming.

Re:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ??

[Grishnakh]

I don't see how this is surprising: Republican voters are constantly voting for homosexual politicians such as Larry Craig.

The illegal plant

[dindi]

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:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ??

[Broken scope]

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.

True. True.

[Weezul]

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:"Screaming, Mindless Christians" ??

[CharlyFoxtrot]

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.

It's about time...

[Stone2065]

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

Re:I won't hold my breath

[black soap]

It should be that way for all drugs. Anything you make/grow yourself, you can ingest. I imagine there would be a lot of people who wouldn't go to the trouble of manufacturing harder drugs, when they could just do some pruning in the garden instead. And, it would remove all profit motive from drug dealers.