Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Reps. Frank and Paul: Let states legalize pot
Seattle Post Intelligencer ^ | June 22, 2011 | Joel Connelly

Posted on 06/22/2011 1:23:14 PM PDT by Second Amendment First

A bipartisan team of Reps. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Ron Paul, R-Texas, will introduce federal legislation that would permit states to legalize, regulate, tax and control marijuana without federal interference.

The legislation will be unveiled Thursday by Frank, an outspoken liberal Democrat, and the libertarian Paul, who is running for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

The bill would limit the U.S. government role in marijuana enforcement to interdiction of cross-border or inter-state smuggling. Citizens would be able to legally grow, use or sell cannabis in states which have legalized the forbidden weed.

The legislation is the first bill to be introduced in Congress that would end federal marijuana prohibition.

In a preview of the legislation, the Marijuana Policy Project noted that last week marked the 40th Anniversary of when President Nixon declared that the federal government was at war with marijuana and other drugs.

Nixon had rejected recommendations by a presidential panel that the country move toward decriminalization and an education and treatment-based drug policy.

(Excerpt) Read more at blog.seattlepi.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 10a; 10thamendment; barneyfrank; bongbrigade; corruption; gethigh; liberalism; libertarian; libertarianism; moralabsolutes; prodope; psychosis; ronpaul; slavery; surrender; wod
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 301-313 next last
To: Osage Orange

No ,not addicted - every few months I stop for a week or two and have no with draw affects at all, no different than if I drank a beer or glass of wine every night after work.


181 posted on 06/22/2011 6:38:33 PM PDT by SamsFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Buddygirl
My children turned out fine, thank you for asking, considering I am 54 my sex drive is stronger than ever ,
182 posted on 06/22/2011 6:45:44 PM PDT by SamsFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: chris_bdba

am 54 will be 55 in December


183 posted on 06/22/2011 6:48:02 PM PDT by SamsFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
the New Deal "substantial effects" interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

Recently upheld by Scalia in furtherance of the drug war.

184 posted on 06/22/2011 6:52:12 PM PDT by Huck (The Antifederalists were right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Huck
Recently upheld by Scalia in furtherance of the drug war.

Along with the most liberal members of the court. Clarence Thomas, on the other hand dissented, so don't try to cherry pick your "facts" on me.

The acid test is whether that decision can be reconciled with an honest attempt at an "original intent" interpretation of the Constitution.

185 posted on 06/22/2011 7:05:15 PM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: SamsFriend
Maybe...maybe not.

When you say you have a joint after work every nite...people wonder, why do you need, want that?

Personally...I get it. But I don't smoke pot.

186 posted on 06/22/2011 7:11:14 PM PDT by Osage Orange (MOLON LABE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Osage Orange

I don’t need it, but I do find it relaxing after dealing with the public all day long.


187 posted on 06/22/2011 7:26:06 PM PDT by SamsFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: TBall

and where low taxes help to generate more revenue.


188 posted on 06/22/2011 7:32:32 PM PDT by TBall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
There is one subject they avoid tenaciously. The Constitution and how the rule of law applies to Federal drug laws. That means they are statists not conservatives.

You got that right. The twists and backflips the prohibitionists perform trying to reconcile prohibition with the original Commerce Clause are something to see. That's if they even bother to address the issue at all.

There are a few who have actually come out of the closet and endorsed Wickard. Of course, they must also accept the constitutionality of federal control of education, the environment and a host of other concerns.

The bottom line is that supporters of the current prohibition show deep contempt for the Constitution and the Founders.

189 posted on 06/22/2011 7:41:01 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: SamsFriend
Okie dokie
190 posted on 06/22/2011 7:48:24 PM PDT by Osage Orange (MOLON LABE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Ken H; tacticalogic
I'm afraid I don't know about the Wickard case, at least not by name, and I am also not familiar with "the New Deal "substantial effects" interpretation of the Commerce Clause" that tacticalogic brought up. I need to do some study on those things.

No matter how noble the cause might be once the gov steps outside the rule of law the law of unintended consequences kicks in. That is battery acid on the Constitution. I wish that more people appreciated that that is a greater danger than any one lousy law is and not worth the perceived benefit of any law.

191 posted on 06/22/2011 7:55:04 PM PDT by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/15/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
Washington was way ahead of you. From his Farewell Address"

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield."

192 posted on 06/22/2011 7:59:40 PM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Agreed!  An outrageous idea. My brother lives in LA county and since the legalization of marijuana the quality of life for those who don’t smoke or use drugs has suffered greatly. You cant even walk down the street without being accosted by Drug addicts who loiter and it makes an unsafe environment for children.


193 posted on 06/22/2011 8:05:18 PM PDT by ManyMoonsAgo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: arderkrag

It’s a horrible idea. My brother lives in LA county and since the legalization of marijuana the quality of life for those who don’t smoke or use drugs has suffered greatly. You cant even walk down the street without being accosted by Drug addicts who loiter and it makes an unsafe environment for kids.


194 posted on 06/22/2011 8:05:25 PM PDT by ManyMoonsAgo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: nerdwithagun

It IS a big deal and it’s a Horrible idea!  My brother lives in LA county and since the legalization of marijuana the quality of life for those who don’t smoke or use drugs has suffered greatly. You cant even walk down the street without being accosted by Drug addicts who loiter and it makes an unsafe environment for kids.


195 posted on 06/22/2011 8:05:40 PM PDT by ManyMoonsAgo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2

It’s not a lie. I was in Beverly Hills in October and it was like a war zone. Went to Itzikyiya (sp) walked by a pot shop and it stank the whole street up. I’ll never go back to that LA hole. You obviously don’t know what clean is.


196 posted on 06/22/2011 8:05:56 PM PDT by ManyMoonsAgo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

I have no problem being a mere shadow of his thinking. I like the company.


197 posted on 06/22/2011 8:06:35 PM PDT by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/15/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: ManyMoonsAgo

Hmmm... There must be two LA Counties. I obviously live in the other one.


198 posted on 06/22/2011 8:07:37 PM PDT by Redcloak (What's your zombie plan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: ExTxMarine

My brother Jonathan Treisman (1st cousin to Michael Treisman your  past assistant) lives in LA county and since the legalization of marijuana the quality of life for those who don’t smoke or use drugs has suffered. The smoke is awful, it seeps onto the streets and sidewalks where non smokers and children walk.  Drug  addicts loiter and it makes an unsafe environment for children.


199 posted on 06/22/2011 8:10:02 PM PDT by ManyMoonsAgo (Jackie is a psychopath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
The best writing that I've seen on Wickard and its substantial effects test is Clarence Thomas's concurrence in US v Lopez. As he put it:

I am aware of no cases prior to the New Deal that characterized the power flowing from the Commerce Clause as sweepingly as does our substantial effects test. My review of the case law indicates that the substantial effects test is but an innovation of the 20th century.

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

200 posted on 06/22/2011 8:11:13 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 301-313 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson