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 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 301-313 next last
To: TigersEye

Well, anyone who smoked pot 40 years has to have their cognitive abilities impaired to support legalization of pot.


151 posted on 06/22/2011 5:12:34 PM PDT by Buddygirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer

There are also many other consitions that can greatly benefit from it’s use.I’d be a wonderful case study if anyone wanted to study me as I’ve been type one diabetic that has avoided 99% of all side effects for the past 41 years I’ve had it.I know someone with MS who has been going for nearly as long as I have and for the same reason.


152 posted on 06/22/2011 5:15:09 PM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Buddygirl

That is an opinion that isn’t supported by any facts. Perhaps you could explain why a prohibition on alcohol required a constitutional amendment and prohibition of other drugs does not. You could demonstrate your amazing intellectual skills and knowledge in doing so.


153 posted on 06/22/2011 5:20:18 PM PDT by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/15/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Buddygirl
"Your sex drive is lessened when you smoke pot"

No it's not.

Are you sure someone you know isn't making up fantastic excuses just to avoid the boudoir?


154 posted on 06/22/2011 5:21:28 PM PDT by I see my hands (Embrace misanthropy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Buddygirl

OH please more statics taken from going backwards....if you start with schizophrenics and work backwards you can find all sorts of things. I’d challege your sex drive comment too as my hubby has been chasing me for over 25 years and it has not stopped in the least.


155 posted on 06/22/2011 5:24:16 PM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Well hubby is 53 and he has worked himself down to 4 or 5 times a week....he still thinks about it all of the time though.....


156 posted on 06/22/2011 5:25:51 PM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Buddygirl

Would you stop with your silly comments.You do realize that the rate of people who have smoked pot in the udner 60 age range is upwards of 85% so if those were true wouldn’t we see a huge increase in birth defects rather than the usual 5% of all births?


157 posted on 06/22/2011 5:27:42 PM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Don’t expect an answer. Prohibitionists never bother to recognize their previous failed experiment.

Anyone who claims to be a conservative and favors the Drug War is shallow in the extreme, with little if any regard for either the constitution or individual rights. Common sense doesn’t really register for those people either.


158 posted on 06/22/2011 5:28:26 PM PDT by drbuzzard (different league)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Buddygirl

I and my hubby are both in our 50’s and it hasn’t stopped us much at all.Age has decresed it froma twice a day thing down to 4-5 times a week but I bet that doesn’t qualify as reduced sex drive right? *eyeroll*


159 posted on 06/22/2011 5:29:48 PM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Because people realized that people who want to fulfill their own selfish desires are going to do it (drink alcohol and/or smoke pot), anyhow, anyway. So, they didn’t pass the law to prohibit drugs. That is what YOU and others are, selfish, who support legalization of pot.


160 posted on 06/22/2011 5:31:31 PM PDT by Buddygirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: chris_bdba

Wow! Three answers to my 1 post! Couldn’t think straight to answer me in one post! What is wrong, you smoking pot?


161 posted on 06/22/2011 5:33:11 PM PDT by Buddygirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Me too! I’m probably more conservativce than most people.I would love to see Sarah run.


162 posted on 06/22/2011 5:33:36 PM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Second Amendment First
I agree with Barney. Let the states decide. I want to live in a state where pot is leagal and marrige is only allowed between a man and a woman.
163 posted on 06/22/2011 5:35:05 PM PDT by TBall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buddygirl

It’s not jsut a lucky few dear.Like I said earlier upwards of 85% of people under the age of 60 have smoked before and many of them have never stopped.I wish there was an honest study that did not start out with addicts or crazy people then I would say the results would be accurate.


164 posted on 06/22/2011 5:35:42 PM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: chris_bdba

My hubby and I. Sorry, but I just had to.


165 posted on 06/22/2011 5:37:17 PM PDT by TBall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: I see my hands

Nope, just stating what I have read over the years about the effects of pot smoking. By the way, why don’t you get your head out of the boudoir? That is no place for a gentleman to be, (if you are one)!


166 posted on 06/22/2011 5:38:16 PM PDT by Buddygirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Buddygirl

I dont know. Ive seen people in college who smoked daily, but when they were sober, they had excellent cognitive abilities. Its the same as people who drink. They act drunk when they are drunk, but all my friends passed their courses. They knew that there was a time to drink and a time to do work, and separated it.

One of my friends smoked every day and finished with an Industrial Engineering Degree in 2 1/2 years and then was accepted into a masters program based on merit.

These are just anecdotal stories, but I have seen people thrive while still throwing down in their offtime.


167 posted on 06/22/2011 5:38:19 PM PDT by Raider Sam (They're on our left, right, front, and back. They aint gettin away this time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Buddygirl

NO perhaps yu shoud look again those were responses to different numered posts...one which was not to you. Boy some people sure become witches when their preconcided notions are challegned....BTW my IQ is over 140 so no I have no problem thinking.


168 posted on 06/22/2011 5:40:12 PM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Buddygirl
Do you think national mj prohibition is in keeping with the original understanding of the Commerce Clause and Tenth Amendment... yes or no?
169 posted on 06/22/2011 5:41:18 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: TBall

Helps to proof read sometimes sorry about the battered English....


170 posted on 06/22/2011 5:41:52 PM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: chris_bdba

You preconcieved...typos sorry I do not type well....


171 posted on 06/22/2011 5:43:37 PM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: chris_bdba

I do it all the time on FB. Drives me nuts.


172 posted on 06/22/2011 5:45:02 PM PDT by TBall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Buddygirl

Is selfishness bad?

Or is it just “bad” selfishness when someone wants to do something that doesnt fit into your ethos?


173 posted on 06/22/2011 5:47:12 PM PDT by Raider Sam (They're on our left, right, front, and back. They aint gettin away this time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: TBall

Yes but at least on FB you do have an edit now or you can copy, delete, and then edit to repost....here once you hit post it is too late. I am the queen of thinking faster than I can type,which means sometimes whole parts will be missing, and having at minimum one typo per post....


174 posted on 06/22/2011 5:48:04 PM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Raider Sam

Funny how some resort to insults when their arguments run thin....just like liberals.I’d like too know how it is selfish when I m am sitting in my own home not bothering anyone? I pay taxes more than most because we never wanted children.Heck I own 3 properties so pay school taxes 3 X....


175 posted on 06/22/2011 5:52:17 PM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: chris_bdba

OOOPPPPSSS to not too


176 posted on 06/22/2011 5:53:36 PM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Buddygirl

That’s a nice try but you avoided explaining “why” no Constitutional amendment was required to prohibit drugs and yet it was necessary in order to prohibit alcohol. Here is a hint; there was a legal reason for AMENDMENT XVIII. They didn’t go through the arduous and risky means of a Constitutional Convention for fun.


177 posted on 06/22/2011 6:18:17 PM PDT by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/15/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: chris_bdba
I'm single so it's nothing but a doggone distraction. I wish one of these young super-growers would come up with a strain of wacky tobaccy that lowered sex drive. Something that doesn't mess with the hormones. No saltpeter either thank you. lol
178 posted on 06/22/2011 6:22:04 PM PDT by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/15/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: drbuzzard
Don’t expect an answer. Prohibitionists never bother to recognize their previous failed experiment.

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.

179 posted on 06/22/2011 6:26:33 PM PDT by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/15/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Buddygirl
So, they didn’t pass the law to prohibit drugs.

Then how did they get to be illegal? All drugs were legal at the turn of the 20th century.

180 posted on 06/22/2011 6:28:10 PM PDT by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/15/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

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 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 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