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 ...
Well, anyone who smoked pot 40 years has to have their cognitive abilities impaired to support legalization of pot.
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.
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.
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.
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.....
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?
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.
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*
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.
Wow! Three answers to my 1 post! Couldn’t think straight to answer me in one post! What is wrong, you smoking pot?
Me too! I’m probably more conservativce than most people.I would love to see Sarah run.
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.
My hubby and I. Sorry, but I just had to.
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)!
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.
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.
Helps to proof read sometimes sorry about the battered English....
You preconcieved...typos sorry I do not type well....
I do it all the time on FB. Drives me nuts.
Is selfishness bad?
Or is it just “bad” selfishness when someone wants to do something that doesnt fit into your ethos?
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....
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....
OOOPPPPSSS to not too
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.
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.
Then how did they get to be illegal? All drugs were legal at the turn of the 20th century.
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.