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

Skip to comments.

Dem whip Hoyer: Keep pot illegal
The Hill ^ | 1/11/14 | Mike Lillis

Posted on 01/12/2014 10:49:32 AM PST by Libloather

Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer (D) this week said he's opposed to laws legalizing marijuana.

While Maryland legislators are expected to take up several proposals to legalize the drug this year, the Democratic minority whip said he's concerned it’s a gateway to harsher narcotics.

"I'm not a proponent of the legalization of marijuana," Hoyer said Thursday during a taping of C-SPAN's "Newsmakers" program, which will air Sunday.

The position puts Hoyer on the same page as Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D), but at odds with a recent shift in public opinion.

O'Malley said earlier in the week that he's "not much in favor" of the legalization proposals members of the state's General Assembly plan to introduce in both chambers this year.

“I’ve seen what drug addiction has done to the people of our state and the people of our city,” O'Malley said Wednesday in an interview with Baltimore's WEAA radio station.

Public sentiment, meanwhile, has shifted sharply in favor of legalization in recent years. A CNN/Opinion Research poll released Monday found that 55 percent of Americans support the move to legalize the drug — up 12 points from 2012 and 39 points from 25 years ago.

A Gallup poll released in October put the level of support at 58 percent.

Interest in decriminalizing marijuana has skyrocketed since voters in Colorado and Washington state voted last year to legalize the drug for recreational use.

While marijuana remains illegal under federal law, the Justice Department announced last year that it wouldn’t attempt to block state efforts to legalize it. Colorado venders began selling it openly on Jan. 1.

"By regulating marijuana like alcohol, Colorado voters hope to reduce crime and keep marijuana away from kids," Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) said as the sales began.

Along with Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), Polis has sponsored legislation to eliminate the federal laws criminalizing the drug.

At least 18 other states and Washington, D.C., have legalized marijuana to some extent, though most of those laws relate to the treatment of medical conditions and require a doctor's prescription.

Hoyer this week noted that a former Baltimore mayor, Kurt Schmoke, had advocated for legalizing pot several decades ago. Hoyer said he supported that move at the time, but has since changed his tune based on his discussions with drug-treatment experts.

"My initial reaction was a positive one," Hoyer said. "Then as I talked to people who deal with drug abuse issues, with rehabilitation issues, I became convinced that marijuana was, in fact, a threshold drug and that it would lead to the use of harder, very harmful drugs.".


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Maryland
KEYWORDS: 113th; hoyer; illegal; pot; potheads; rat; weed
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-144 next last
This particular idiot is a real hoot.

House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer: No extremists on our side of the aisle

1 posted on 01/12/2014 10:49:32 AM PST by Libloather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Libloather

There’s no reason to keep it illegal.


2 posted on 01/12/2014 10:55:56 AM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Wow! The first time I’ve ever agreed with this guy.


3 posted on 01/12/2014 11:00:01 AM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Hoyer doesn’t care about stoned kids, but the thought of giving up a large chunk of federal police, or relinquishing a little grip on tyranny terrifies him.


4 posted on 01/12/2014 11:01:32 AM PST by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chris37
There’s no reason to keep it illegal.

Yeah can't wait to walk thru somebodies THC laced second hand smoke. /

Unbelievable.

5 posted on 01/12/2014 11:04:22 AM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
When I read this I thought to myself, “Ahh, a recipient of cartel money”.
6 posted on 01/12/2014 11:14:29 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS! BETTER DEAD THAN RED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

What an idiot. When I was a Prosecutor I bet 90% of Prosecutors and Officer thought it should be legal.


7 posted on 01/12/2014 11:15:04 AM PST by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: livius

I agree but I think hoyer is being paid by those that wish to keep their trade illegal and highly profitable. I do not think that he cares about the damage drugs do to youth.


8 posted on 01/12/2014 11:17:51 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS! BETTER DEAD THAN RED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: chris37

I could only agree with you under three conditions:

1. No social benefits of any sort goes to fund or support the people using such drugs. This would be similar to an employer not hiring someone because of their drug use.

2. All crimes committed while under the influence of a voluntarily taken recreational drug are considered premeditated.

3. A torture penalty is enacted that prescribes three times the torture back to whatever somebody under such influence provided another. This is Biblical.


9 posted on 01/12/2014 11:19:15 AM PST by ConservativeMind ("Humane" = "Don't pen up pets or eat meat, but allow infanticide, abortion, and euthanasia.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: chris37

Especially considering the remarkable lack of successs the war on drugs has had in limiting availability. Anybody that wants pot can get it now anyways.


10 posted on 01/12/2014 11:19:34 AM PST by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign

Then avoid areas where that may happen if it bothers you so much.

If you do not like something, then do not go where that something is likely to occur.


11 posted on 01/12/2014 11:22:03 AM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind

Um, seems pretty radical.

Agreed on number 1.

Not agreed on number 2. Seems like being unable to cite being high as a defense would be quite a bit more reasonable.

Smoking weed doesn’t make people torture people, Evil makes people torture people, and torturing someone who tortured someone else only serves to increase the total amount of torture (Evil) in this world.

Let’s not be psychopaths please ;/


12 posted on 01/12/2014 11:25:30 AM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: chris37
Then avoid areas where that may happen if it bothers you so much. If you do not like something, then do not go where that something is likely to occur.

So then a person would be free to do whatever they want on public property...for example in front of your house.

And if you don't like it then you should not leave your house.

Cool.

13 posted on 01/12/2014 11:26:10 AM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jospehm20

Yep.

If as an adult I decide that I’m going to smoke some pot, then I’m going to smoke some pot, and that’s all there is to it.


14 posted on 01/12/2014 11:26:45 AM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign

No one is currently free to do anything they want on my property.

You know, it seems to me that you are just being intentionally stupid and purposely providing examples that mean nothing.

I see no further need to converse with you about this.


15 posted on 01/12/2014 11:28:16 AM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: chris37

You can guarantee that no babies, childen or pets will EVER be exposed to THC- laced second hand smoke?

You can guarantee that no one will EVER fail a drug test from being exposed to THC-laced second hand smoke from a roommate or from the apartment next door? You can guarantee that NO ONE will ever lost their jobs because of this?

You can guarantee that no semi driver will ever be on a busy highway after smoke legal recreational pot?

How many semi drivers who smoked legal recreational pot, in your opinion, is it safe to have on a stretch of, say, 5 miles of a busy interstate? Where your spouse, parents, children or significant other is also driving?

Please tell me how you plan to insure that none of these ‘unintended consequences’ will result from legalized pot use. I can’t wait to hear it.


16 posted on 01/12/2014 11:33:41 AM PST by SusaninOhio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SusaninOhio

I never made any claim that I would insure such.

What sane person would make such a claim?


17 posted on 01/12/2014 11:35:29 AM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: chris37
So then a person would be free to do whatever they want on public property...for example in front of your house.

No one is currently free to do anything they want on my property. You know, it seems to me that you are just being intentionally stupid and purposely providing examples that mean nothing.

In my example I specifically said "on public" property.

I said nothing whatsoever about on your private private.

It was your response that was stupid...and I'm not sure if it was intentional.

18 posted on 01/12/2014 11:36:53 AM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Surely the first time I’ve ever agreed with this moron.

Partially due to self-interest, however. Because if I happen to walk over to my local park and encounter two damned degenerates smoking their dope, I’ve very liable to personally crack their skulls open. The trouble for me that would ensue from such an action is alone enough reason for me to want to keep dope illegal.


19 posted on 01/12/2014 11:36:57 AM PST by greene66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chris37

What if your spouse elects to smoke legal recreational pot? Do you leave the house for the duration? Does he/she? Where do the children play and sleep, when parent is using recreational pot, that guarantees they will not in any way be exposed to the smoke?

I’m just curious. Oh, and if it’s legal, does that mean folks can light up in public places like restaurants and bars? Should everyone else have to clear out to avoid being tagged with the smoke?

How are you going to regulate this ‘avoid areas’ thing if it is legal? That means, to most people, that it can occur ANYWHERE. Thus your comment, ‘do not go where that something is likely to occur’ must mean that anyone who has concerns about losing a job after testing positive to pot, via second-hand smoke, must move out of the state?

Really? That’s all you got? ‘do not go where etcetc’. Great solution, if you are idiot, which I hope you are not.


20 posted on 01/12/2014 11:39:01 AM PST by SusaninOhio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: All

Great, keep it illegal under federal law. Just quit bitching about abuse of the constitution when it suits you. The end does not justify the means, and those who fail to understand what the word interstate means have no sympathy from me when it’s used against them.


21 posted on 01/12/2014 11:42:24 AM PST by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chris37

So it’s ok, that no one who thinks pot should be a legal drug, has no solutions for any of my very likely scenarios?

It’s not ok with me. I have children and grandchildren and some of them have security clearances they need to protect. Losing their jobs because of someone’s careless use of a LEGAL recreational drug is a strong possibility in your scenario where pot is legal.

All I am asking is for you explain how you think the unintended consequences, which are not at all far-fetched, should be handled.

If you think it should be legal, than you have to consider the consequences, and you should be prepared to address them.

Otherwise, just saying ‘I think it should be legal’ is pretty stupid and very shortsighted.


22 posted on 01/12/2014 11:43:17 AM PST by SusaninOhio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: jospehm20
Especially considering the remarkable lack of successs the war on drugs has had in limiting availability. Anybody that wants pot can get it now anyways.

I am armed to the teeth and carry everywhere I go. I do not smoke pot. That said, conservatives will argue all day that if you make guns illegal, only outlaws will have guns. How can you make the opposite argument about a plant the grows in the wild?

23 posted on 01/12/2014 11:44:43 AM PST by IamConservative (The soul of my lifes journey is Liberty!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: pallis
Hoyer doesn’t care about stoned kids, but the thought of giving up a large chunk of federal police, or relinquishing a little grip on tyranny terrifies him.

That would be my take, too.

24 posted on 01/12/2014 11:48:01 AM PST by Zuben Elgenubi (NOPe to GOPe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign

In front of my house ain’t public property, genius.

It’s my property.

Please go away now.


25 posted on 01/12/2014 11:53:56 AM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SusaninOhio

If I intend to smoke pot, it’s going to be in my living room.

If you don’t like it, you’re more than welcome to show yourself to the door.

I’m really not concerned with all of your other concerns, because they are not my concerns.


26 posted on 01/12/2014 11:55:19 AM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: chris37
I believe in holding people accountable for their actions. Apparently, you don't.

There is nothing “psychopathic” about those three expectations. If someone under the influence of a drug does something to another, that is premeditated, as that person chose to throw out self-control. It is no different than a person going into a crowded mall, placing on a blindfold, and then randomly firing a gun. If they hit someone, how can they claim it wasn't “premeditated?”

If weed or other drugs that chase your capacity to control yourself doesn't make you do things that hurt others, then you won't have to worry about the torture. But if it did, you would.

Let's not be “libertines,” please.

27 posted on 01/12/2014 11:57:07 AM PST by ConservativeMind ("Humane" = "Don't pen up pets or eat meat, but allow infanticide, abortion, and euthanasia.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SusaninOhio

I wouldn’t use it in such a way that it endangers others.

The reason I wouldn’t do that is bc I’m not an ahole.

I cannot account for the behavior of everyone else in this world, and neither can anyone else, and neither can any laws.

People do dumb sh*t all the time, legal or not.


28 posted on 01/12/2014 11:57:21 AM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SusaninOhio

Your questions are exactly how liberals justify big government. You’re bordering on support for prior restraint.

Can you guarantee that you won’t turn into a homicidal maniac and shoot up a shopping mall? See how easy that is? But I guess your desire to abuse the constitution is couched by how “very likely” your scenarios are.

The same logic was used for prohibition, which though a stupid idea, at least acknowledged that the power was extra-constitutional, and required an amendment.

At least those foes of liberty were intellectually honest.


29 posted on 01/12/2014 12:02:15 PM PST by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind

Are drunk drivers that hit and kill an innocent driver charged with premeditated murder?

Is alcohol illegal because all unintended consequences of that legal product cannot be insured against?

You don’t have to answer either of those, because anyone with a brain already knows the answers to both.

Let’s not play the double standard game please.


30 posted on 01/12/2014 12:12:01 PM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Libloather; All
Bearing 10th Amendment protected state sovereignty in mind, socialist Justice Louis D. Brandeis had appropriately noted that the states are laboratories for policy experiments.
Laboratories of Democracy
And I don't have any problems if some states foolishly blow themselves off of the flag; let them get swallowed by social Darwinism.
31 posted on 01/12/2014 12:13:20 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chris37
In front of my house ain’t public property, genius.

For the third time now "smart guy", I said on public property in front of your house.

For example I'm looking out my front window now. Out past where the front of my property ends I see...low and behold...public property. The front of my house faces this public property.

Geez, you can't be that obtuse...can you?

Please go away now.

Irony.

32 posted on 01/12/2014 12:27:34 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Truthfully, I hope the Democrats keep both marijuana and hemp illegal until there is a Republican congress and POTUS.

The reason being that hemp agriculture could pump about $20 billion into the US economy overnight, employing tens of thousands of people in high paying jobs. So I would prefer that Republicans and conservatives get the credit for it.

To start with, hemp can grow on marginal land, so unlike the ethanol fiasco, no existing farmland needs to be diverted raising prices. Hemp requires minimal irrigation, fertilizer and pesticide as well, so it is very cheap to grow.

Next, right now the pulp and paper industry have a gross annual income of about $25 billion. With some retooling, instead of wasting high quality trees to make wood pulp, they could make *very* high quality paper with hemp, as well as use that wood for much more valuable lumber, lowering its price as well.

Second, refined hemp is much like silk in texture and appearance, and makes good quality clothing.

Third, hemp also makes good quality animal fodder, which if you lower its price, again currently high because of ethanol, it lowers the price of meat and dairy.

Finally, growing hemp actually inhibits the growth of marijuana, as well as reducing its potency. Since the drug containing resins are produced only by the female plants, male plants are culled, but with hemp in production, the air would be dense with hemp pollen, which would both stop resin production and make for lower quality seed.


33 posted on 01/12/2014 12:28:01 PM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (There Is Still A Very Hot War On Terror, Just Not On The MSM. Rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chris37
If I intend to smoke pot, it’s going to be in my living room.

I have no problem with you soaking your brain with THC in your own living room. Knock yourself out.

It's in public, where I do.

34 posted on 01/12/2014 12:30:31 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: IamConservative

I don’t smoke pot either. I just do not see it as a problem that is worth the money we have spent on it or the freedoms we have lost in the fight against it. Practically, the effort to end its use has been spectacularly unsuccessful. Pot is more available and more potent now than it was 30 years and billions of enforcement dollars ago. I suspect that legalizing it and selling it in licensed outlets will result in the availability to minors being reduced from what it is now.


35 posted on 01/12/2014 12:31:07 PM PST by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: chris37

“There’s no reason to keep it illegal.”

Yes there is, unless you don’t care if every Mfg plant in America moves to China. They won’t stay to be sued into bankruptcy by tort lawyers when someone gets run over by a lift-truck.


36 posted on 01/12/2014 12:34:23 PM PST by Beagle8U (Unions are Affirmative Action for Slackers! .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SusaninOhio

Those things happen now, your laws don’t stop them.

/johnny


37 posted on 01/12/2014 12:35:37 PM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

It’s up to employers to make sure that the people that work for them are up to the necessary standards.

If you don’t want pot smokers working for you, then don’t hire them.


38 posted on 01/12/2014 12:37:28 PM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: greene66

“Surely the first time I’ve ever agreed with this moron.”

Trouble is, Steny (WTH kind of name is that, anyway?) was probably drunk when he said it.


39 posted on 01/12/2014 12:38:02 PM PST by beelzepug (if any alphabets are watchin', I'll be coming home right after the meetin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

Your laws don’t stop lift truck drivers from smoking it now.

/johnny


40 posted on 01/12/2014 12:38:25 PM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: chris37

Drunk drivers SHOULD be charged with their crimes considered premeditated. That this is not normally done is a current policy failure.

My great aunt lost both her legs when a drunk driver hit her. I definitely want this applied to drinkers.

I have no double standard in this. I also believe those three criteria should apply to myself, should I do any crime under such influence.

Anyone with a brain should believe the same as I.


41 posted on 01/12/2014 12:42:23 PM PST by ConservativeMind ("Humane" = "Don't pen up pets or eat meat, but allow infanticide, abortion, and euthanasia.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign
So then a person would be free to do whatever they want on public property...for example in front of your house.

This is exactly what you said. What is in front of my house is my front lawn, which is not public property. What's beyond my front lawn is the street. Had you meant street, then you should have said street.

Now, if there are people smoking weed in the street in front of your house and you don't like it, then report them to the police. Maybe the police will do something about it, and maybe they won't.

Personally, if all such a person is doing is smoking weed and not committing any actual crimes, I don't care.

42 posted on 01/12/2014 12:42:47 PM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign

I can think of no reason I would want to smoke weed in public.


43 posted on 01/12/2014 12:43:38 PM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: pallis
Yep. Wanna bet the “people who deal with drug abuse issues” he talked to all get their salaries paid by the feds as part of the War on Drugs?
44 posted on 01/12/2014 12:44:09 PM PST by Hugin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign

“Geez, you can’t be that obtuse...can you?”

I think it’s becoming quite apparent that he can, don’t you?


45 posted on 01/12/2014 12:47:57 PM PST by beelzepug (if any alphabets are watchin', I'll be coming home right after the meetin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: chris37

Bean bag/Pink Floyd convention with unlimited Hors d’oeuvre served by Disney characters and cheerleaders?


46 posted on 01/12/2014 12:49:25 PM PST by Fuzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: chris37

“It’s up to employers to make sure that the people that work for them are up to the necessary standards.”

I said they would do exactly that, they will move to a sane country where they can run a profitable business.

I could give a crap less if you smoke dope until to chew your own arm off in a munchies rage, but making it legal will have a huge effect on the nations economy.


47 posted on 01/12/2014 12:49:47 PM PST by Beagle8U (Unions are Affirmative Action for Slackers! .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: chris37

“It’s up to employers to make sure that the people that work for them are up to the necessary standards.”

I said they would do exactly that, they will move to a sane country where they can run a profitable business.

I could give a crap less if you smoke dope until to chew your own arm off in a munchies rage, but making it legal will have a huge effect on the nations economy.


48 posted on 01/12/2014 12:49:47 PM PST by Beagle8U (Unions are Affirmative Action for Slackers! .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: jospehm20
I don’t smoke pot either. I just do not see it as a problem that is worth the money we have spent on it or the freedoms we have lost in the fight against it. Practically, the effort to end its use has been spectacularly unsuccessful. Pot is more available and more potent now than it was 30 years and billions of enforcement dollars ago. I suspect that legalizing it and selling it in licensed outlets will result in the availability to minors being reduced from what it is now.

Pretty much where I am too. Nothing is as effective at killing enterprise (illicit or otherwise) as taxation and regulation.

49 posted on 01/12/2014 12:53:23 PM PST by IamConservative (The soul of my lifes journey is Liberty!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Fuzz

You can sign me up for the Pink Floyd part anytime ^^


50 posted on 01/12/2014 12:55:01 PM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-144 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