Skip to comments.Reps. Frank and Paul: Let states legalize pot
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 ...
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.
am 54 will be 55 in December
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.
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.
I don’t need it, but I do find it relaxing after dealing with the public all day long.
and where low taxes help to generate more revenue.
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.
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.
"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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
I have no problem being a mere shadow of his thinking. I like the company.
Hmmm... There must be two LA Counties. I obviously live in the other one.
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.
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.