Barney Frank Files Bill To Decriminalize Pot

WBZ ^ | 6/19/2009 | WBZ38

[microgood]

And having lost a child to drug overdose, who started with pot, I don’t see the gateway as a myth but a reality that changed my life and the world (the rest of you just dont know what you lost when he died, I do).

Very sorry to hear about that. There is nothing worse than losing a child like that.

The tragedies in my family have all been around alcohol mixed with other substances. My mother died when I was 13 of that, and we have almost lost my sister. Some in the family smoked the stuff in the past, but it has never been an issue that led to anything else.

My point has always been that what the drug war has led to (no-knock searches, asset forfeiture, the rise of SWAT and militarization of our police) that has happened in the last thirty years is not what I want to pass on to future generations. And I have always thought that by putting pot aside, more efforts could be focused on the drugs that really kill you, like meth or heroin.

Another point I think is valid is that many people who started with pot get their other drugs from the same people, and by eliminating the pot pipeline, I think it would be much harder to get the other drugs. Since the nearly 9% of Americans that regularly smoke pot would no longer need to go underground, the 2% of meth and heroin users would have to dig much deeper to find a source.

[microgood]

Legalize pot and forget about having a military. Also welfare spending will zoom through the roof to pay for all these self-lobotomized bums. It’s bad enough as it is

I guess your assumption is that millions of people are lying in wait for pot to be legalized that are not doing it now just because it is illegal. I am not sure that is a valid assumption. In addition, the military could still outlaw it as a condition of being in the military and employers could still drug test it as a condition of employment. Manny Ramirez was suspended 50 games for taking a substance you can buy legally.

[Clinging Bitterly]

Yes I read the rest of the article, & I have to say that I am not 100% satisfied 'cuz the bill doesn't go far enough.

Right. There is no legitimate reason for it to be illegal at all, especially on a federal level, where the original basis for it's control is laughable at best and pure crap.

Of course we have decriminalization for simple possession of less than one ounce, and have had for a long time in Oregon, and also the so-called medical marijuana law - exemptions which federal agencies presently choose to observe or ignore case by case as they see fit.

We also have a patchwork of smaller political subdivisions that have, either as ordinance or policy, dictated that marijuana enforcement receives the absolute lowest priority. But still there are no assurances one can toke with impunity as in any of those places the circumstances under which enforcement may or may not occur are not clearly defined.

The whole thing is mired in stupidity and I believe the underlying thing is those who govern are unwilling to let go of control. I would be happy for US lawmakers to recognize the madness and wipe the slate clean, with states following suit. Some individual states may have legitimate reasons to enact some controls, but the ideal situation would be for them to look at the issue anew and determine exactly what they are based on constitutional principles and objective criteria.

Alas, what we'll more likely see as attitudes evolve is legalization with tight control of production and distribution, and of course, punitive taxation. To the extent that sort of scheme is carried, there will remain black markets, and crime and senseless death will continue.

And that is all on the horizon for tobacco too. Can you hardly wait?

[mikelets456]

“If I want to do something that is utterly stupid, pointless, but harms no other person-—yes...”

It’s naive to think that actions behind closed doors will NEVER affect anyone. So if I get drunk, high or wasted behind closed doors on a daily basis it won’t affect anyone else in my life? Eventually you’ll ask a friend, they’ll ask friends and now you got a bunch of people partying, missing work and dead beats that my tax dollars have to support. Gosh, what about the children and other obligations in life? We’ll end up with more rehabilitation clinics, people looking for a better “high” which leads to more crime and again more tax dollars. Yes, in the end the actions done in private will spread into society....it is inevitable.
This is extreme, but that kind of thinking will lead to more and more of this type of outcome.

[jrestrepo]

I see what you are saying but it is not the same to me. I’d give it more of a man slaughter type of label. Tough but not planned out.

[jrestrepo]

What did you mean by "the ten"? I didn't follow.

[ksen]

What you’re proposing is “everything’s legal” as long as you’re responsible?

Yes, it's called "liberty" and I thought that was a concept endorsed by most people claiming to be conservative.

I don't want to live under a liberal nanny-state and I certainly don't want to live under a conservative nanny-state either.

[mikelets456]

You bring up a good point...The only thing is anarchy does not bode well either. I guess limited government is best! We need some laws, there is no doubt about that. What I am trying to say is these idiots in there now will make us pay for it some how.

But your point is valid...Thanks.

[Ken H]

Does fedgov have any constitutional authority to impose a national prohibition against marijuana, as you understand the Constitution?

If "yes", which section or clause does so, in your opinion?

[mikelets456]

How about speeding (car), smoking and unhealthy foods? The more laws they make the more freedoms we lose.

However, it’s either anarchy or limited government. Both ends of the spectrum are bad. if anarchy is “0” and Socialism is “10” on a chart, we should be at “1”. Right now I think we are at “4” getting ready to leap to “6.5”...very scary!

[Ken H]

So, does fedgov have the constitutional authority to impose a national prohibition against marijuana, as you understand the Constitution... yes or no?

[mikelets456]

Sorry, I did not know you wanted an answer.
I would think the Fed...NO. State...yes. The best thing for states is to compete against each other. If you don’t like their ( a State’s) decision then leave. However, when the Feds run EVERYTHING where can you go?

BTW, this is my answer I’m not sure what the “Constitutional” answer would be. Please enlighten me...I love learning...

[Ken H]

I would think the Fed...NO. State...yes.

Agreed.

Here are three brilliant opinions by Justice Clarence Thomas on the original understanding of the Commerce Clause, and why the New Deal Wickard decision - upon which marijuana prohibition is based - is in error:

Raich v Gonzales, 2005:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html

____________________________________

United States v. Lopez, 1995:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZC1.html

____________________________________

United States v. Morrison, 2000: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-5.ZC.html

_____________________________________

James Madison on the original understanding of the power to regulate commerce among the several states:

For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it.

Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_3_commerces19.html