Posted on 06/23/2009 1:35:51 PM PDT by mikelets456
Good point!!!
I don't *think* Barney --My Boy Lollipop-- Frank's as dumb as he appears, here. Just think of all that surplus WOD dough IF he got his way?
Who'd get their grubby li'l hands on said dough, first?
Who'd get the lion's share, eh?
With all those billions at stake, this w/could be a virtual feeding frenzy. Akin to a pack of starving savanna hyenas pouncing on an injured infant gazelle.
Given the past general election results?
I've often thought the first political party who came out for a reasonable decriminalization proposal, would be[come] the dominant political party in the USA for years to come.
Think "New Deal" and all that, only a convoluted 2009 version with; but, identical results.
Had hoped it'd have been a certain party, but knew it'd never happen. The other party OTOH knows a good crisis when they see one, aren't likely to let this one slip through their greasy fingers.
How fun will it be watching *this* play out, see just how much traction it gets?
They'll just slap a tax on it that will be higher than the tobacco tax.
The business will shift into untaxed pot and the government will shift all the enforcement funds into tax compliance.
The bust will then be for trafficking, selling & possession of illegal untaxed pot. Sound familiar?
Finally at long last Barney has a stand I agree with.
I think there is a difference in decriminalization and legalization. At least that is my understanding of the matter. In Portugal I don’t get the feeling that it is legal and taxed, just that they are going to bother prosecuting anyone for drugs.
And if he gets this one passed, he will file a bill to decriminalize gay prostitution in the District of Columbia!
Don't get your bowels in an uproar. You need to remember that w/ marijuana -- & just like alcohol or any other recreational drug -- there is (1) RESPONSIBLE use & (2) IRRESPONSIBLE use. Here is a good ecplaination of RESPONSIBLE use:
When cannabis(marijuana) is enjoyed responsibly, subjecting users to harsh criminal and civil penalties provides no public benefit and causes terrible injustices. For reasons of public safety, public health, economics and justice, the prohibition laws should be repealed to the extent that they criminalize responsible cannabis use.
By adoption of this statement, the NORML Board of Directors has attempted to define "responsible cannabis use."
I. Adults Only
Cannabis consumption is for adults only. It is irresponsible to provide cannabis to children.
Many things and activities are suitable for young people, but others absolutely are not. Children do not drive cars, enter into contracts, or marry, and they must not use drugs. As it is unrealistic to demand lifetime abstinence from cars, contracts and marriage, however, it is unrealistic to expect lifetime abstinence from all intoxicants, including alcohol. Rather, our expectation and hope for young people is that they grow up to be responsible adults. Our obligation to them is to demonstrate what that means.
II. No Driving
The responsible cannabis consumer does not operate a motor vehicle or other dangerous machinery while impaired by cannabis, nor (like other responsible citizens) while impaired by any other substance or condition, including some medicines and fatigue.
Although cannabis is said by most experts to be safer than alcohol and many prescription drugs with motorists, responsible cannabis consumers never operate motor vehicles in an impaired condition. Public safety demands not only that impaired drivers be taken off the road, but that objective measures of impairment be developed and used, rather than chemical testing.
III. Set and Setting
The responsible cannabis user will carefully consider his/her set and setting, regulating use accordingly.
"Set" refers to the consumer's values, attitudes, experience and personality, and "setting" means the consumer's physical and social circumstances. The responsible cannabis consumer will be vigilant as to conditions -- time, place, mood, etc. -- and does not hesitate to say "no" when those conditions are not conducive to a safe, pleasant and/or productive experience.
IV. Resist Abuse
Use of cannabis, to the extent that it impairs health, personal development or achievement, is abuse, to be resisted by responsible cannabis users.
Abuse means harm. Some cannabis use is harmful; most is not. That which is harmful should be discouraged; that which is not need not be.
Wars have been waged in the name of eradicating "drug abuse", but instead of focusing on abuse, enforcement measures have been diluted by targeting all drug use, whether abusive or not. If cannabis abuse is to be targeted, it is essential that clear standards be developed to identify it.
V. Respect Rights of Others
The responsible cannabis user does not violate the rights of others, observes accepted standards of courtesy and public propriety, and respects the preferences of those who wish to avoid cannabis entirely.
No one may violate the rights of others, and no substance use excuses any such violation. Regardless of the legal status of cannabis, responsible users will adhere to emerging tobacco smoking protocols in public and private places.
Adopted by the NORML Board of Directors
February 3, 1996
Washington, DC
Very simple, is it not?
BTW, THANK YOU, Rep. Frank. It seems like you introduce this bill into every Congress, & hopefully you will have some success in passing it THIS time.
I agree with decriminalizing it. Pot is available in any town or city in the U.S. You can get arrested for DUI whether it’s legal or not. Legalize it and tax the hell out of it. The current, very successful continent wide distribution of this currently illegal drug is mind boggling. Both politicians and law enforcers that must be getting their cut will be eliminated.
I could deal w/ that....like the name of the show on FOX, I would call that "The Price of Freedom". :-)
I know lots of people, mostly my age (in their 50's) who frequently will have a little puff in the evening (instead of a martini) and function in society just fine.
Just because some teenager does crack (and once smoked pot) it doesn't mean the government should deprive responsible adults of things that affect no one adversly.
He doesn’t care about stoners....he cares about how much he can tax their drug of choice.
He doesn’t care about stoners....he cares about how much he can tax their drug of choice.
Mere decriminalization will just lead to higher use, which will lead to larger profits for those dealing it. The larger profits will lead to increasingly violent drug wars, which will lead to either total legalization or re-criminalization to reduce the violence.
Think maybe Barney's clock is broken at 4:20?
Did you read the rest of the post?
But don't forget, a little pot is how they recruit those scared underage runaways gay prostitutes.
It would do this and also give Alcohol purveyors some stiff competition. That is probably the reason it can't pass.
I see a lot of opposition here. I'm for legalizing, regulating and, to the extent reasonable, taxing MJ. It would, as you point out, make a good part of the war on drugs unnecessary, would cut into the Cartels enormous profits and get the already widespread use out in the open and in a fashion where it can be seriously regulated.
To me, it is the same as what the repeal of Prohibition did.
Didn’t happen in Portugal. Their rates of drug use are lower than in America, especially for lifetime users.
Perhaps things would be different in the US, but clearly the way things are going now isn’t working.
Certain weapons are illegal or hard to obtain because, just as with some drugs, the Feds want to have control over our lives and having access to military-grade weapons and explosives would endanger their noble aims of controlling our lives and protecting us from ourselves AND from the boogeyman du jour.
I neither want nor need such “protection.” As a grown and responsible adult American, I am fully capable of making such decisions myself... which is another reason I abhor the war on some drugs AND those who champion it. I chose not to use such drugs, but it is MY PLACE to make that choice. It is NOT YOURS TO MAKE IT FOR ME. Is that clear enough?
I also remember making a typo in my original post on this thread: that FOX show is "The COST" of Freedom, not "The Price...", correct? I remembered that just a millisecond after hitting the Post button.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.