You obviously know little about the subject, but your knees do jerk quite well!
Posted on 06/25/2011 1:50:46 AM PDT by danielmryan
The federal war on drugs is coming under attack from multiple angles, most recently with the introduction of a bill in Congress by conservative Rep. Ron Paul and liberal Rep. Barney Frank that would end the national prohibition on marijuana and allow states to set their own policies.
The “Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011,” or HR 2306, would not “legalize” marijuana. If passed, the legislation would simply remove the plant from the federal list of “controlled substances.” States would then be free to regulate, tax, or prohibit it without U.S. government interference.
One of the important issues the bill would remedy is an ongoing conflict between federal authorities and numerous states that have nullified U.S. statutes by decriminalizing the possession of marijuana or legalizing it for medicinal purposes.
The legal medical-marijuana industry has flourished in over a dozen states in recent years in spite of the federal prohibition. But despite promising not to squander taxpayer money pursuing the issue, the Obama administration has actually increased federal bullying of state officials and the industry as a whole.
The new legislation, said to be the first of its kind introduced in Congress, also touches on several important questions beyond whether or not marijuana should be criminalized. And it puts conservatives in Congress who support federal drug prohibition while claiming to support the Constitution in an awkward position.
As opponents of the federal drug war point out, the U.S. government does not have any authority under the Constitution to ban substances, harmful or otherwise. That’s why alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment. So, under the Tenth Amendment, regulation of drugs necessarily falls under the purview of the states or the people.
But beyond the obvious constitutional problems with the federal war, supporters of the new legislation also argue that the policies have been an expensive failure with atrocious consequences.
“The war against marijuana causes so much hardship and accomplishes nothing,” Rep. Paul said during an interview about the proposal, noting that marijuana is helpful to many cancer patients. “We knew prohibition of alcohol was very bad, so this is just getting back to a sensible position on how we handle difficult problems.”
The 2012 GOP presidential candidate also said a trillion dollars had already been spent to fight the war on drugs. “And it’s a catastrophe, just as prohibition of alcohol was a catastrophe,” he explained. “Kids today have an easier time finding marijuana than they can alcohol.”
Liberal Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who introduced the bill with Paul, also blasted federal policies on the substance. "Criminally prosecuting adults for making the choice to smoke marijuana is a waste of law enforcement resources and an intrusion on personal freedom," he told reporters.
"I do not advocate urging people to smoke marijuana. Neither do I urge them to drink alcoholic beverages or smoke tobacco,” Frank added. “But in none of these cases do I think prohibition enforced by criminal sanctions is good public policy.”
Introduced on June 23, the bill has already attracted several cosponsors including Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), and Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.). “The human cost of the failed drug war has been enormous — egregious racial disparities, shattered families, poverty, public health crises, prohibition-related violence, and the erosion of civil liberties,” said cosponsor Rep. Lee of California, a state that has already used nullification to legalize medical marijuana. And outside of Congress, a broad coalition of supporters is also rallying around the bill.
“I don't have to tell you how historic and important this bill has the potential to be,” said executive director Neill Franklin of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), an organization of current and former law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges that advocates ending drug prohibition. In a message urging people to contact their congressional representatives in support of the bill, Franklin noted that, among other benefits, the legislation would free up law enforcers to “focus on solving violent crime rather than wasting their time on nonviolent marijuana offenses.”
The Marijuana Policy Project also encouraged Americans to support the bill and urge their Representatives to do so as well. “Hundreds of billions of dollars have been wasted on marijuana prohibition over the past forty years. And for what? Usage rates don't change. The price of marijuana doesn't change,” the organization said. “All prohibition has done is ensure that profits have remained underground while marijuana itself has been unregulated and less safe.”
But several opponents of the bill — particularly among government officials and others dependent on the federal drug war for employment — are lining up to attack it. The Office of National Drug Control Policy, for example, issued a statement blasting the proposal. “Legalization remains a nonstarter in the Obama administration,” it said, despite the fact that the President himself publicly admitted to smoking and inhaling marijuana “frequently.”
Similarly, Chairman Lamar Smith of the House Judiciary Committee said he would not even consider the proposal. Rep. Smith’s refusal to address the legislation could prevent it from coming up for a vote in the House of Representatives.
But despite opposition, pressure is building nationwide to address the problems caused by the federal war on drugs. The U.S. Conference of Mayors, for example, recently adopted a resolution unanimously blasting the war as a “failure.”
Especially troublesome, the resolution noted, is the fact that the United States imprisons more people per capita than any other nation in the world — with just five percent of the global population, American prisons house a full 25 percent of the world’s prisoners. The majority of them are in jail for non-violent drug offenses.
Earlier this month, the Global Commission on Drug Policy, consisting of prominent world leaders, outlined the failure of the global drug war and called for an end to prohibition. The worldwide anti-drug regime, including the 40-year-old “War on Drugs” in America, was originally sparked by the UN “Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs” treaty forcing governments to ban drugs.
Of course, many countries around the world have defied the UN drug treaty and approached the problem of substance abuse from other angles. Portugal and the Czech Republic, for instance, have both legalized all drugs. And studies show that the efforts have actually decreased problems such as addiction and use of drugs among minors — not to mention crime.
As The New American reported earlier this year, a coalition of top officials and lawmakers in the U.K. is also seeking to decriminalize drugs and treat the problem as a public health concern instead of a criminal matter. Around the world, the trend is similar.
The Associated Press predicted that the Paul-Frank bill to end the federal war on marijuana has “no chance of passing the Republican-controlled House.” But supporters of the legislation expect that it will — at the very least — spark a much-needed public debate about the issue.
It also gives me the chance to put forth, as an outsider, a proposition for a seperate peace to the War on Drugs. It's based upon this assumption: What's really biting is not drug illegalization itself, but the assault on civil liberties that have been caused by the War on Drugs.
One of the side effects has been the corruption of law enforcement. As Radley Balko explained on Fox News, the Drug War is associated with lying to get a warrant (eroding the Fourth Amendment) and even planting drugs on innocent suspects. Less luridly, but more decisively, several precedents have been established that have eroded U.S. civil liberties such as:
In my own 'umble opinion, it's the anonymous-tips provision that's most lethal to civil liberties. It means a snitch can use the cops as private muscle to get back at someone he or she dislikes. It's how the Stasi operated in East Germany.
Here's the proposal I would like to put up for discussion: instead of repealing the Controlled Substances Act, Ron Paul should make an effort to introduce a "Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 20xx" that would crack down on the civil-liberties abuses of the Drug War - like clamping down on those items listed above. Police overkill has been sanctioned by earlier judicial overkill.
Then, leave it up to law enforcement. They would have to go back to the way drug laws were enforced in the 1950s. Drug decriminalization should be considered only if the drug laws prove unenforcable. The reason why I'm suggesting this approach is because a lot of the Drug War opponents have little interest in drugs but a great interest in their civil liberties.
My Canadian two cents' worth.
Ron Paul is a NUT! This “law” would prove destructive to the very moral fabric of the nation and would result in the destruction of multitudes of lives and untold misery resulting in further lawlessness, wickedness and ungodliness.
Without Arab intoxicants taking us over, then how can we ever close the curtain on Western Civilization?
“a lot of the Drug War opponents have little interest in drugs but a great interest in their civil liberties.”
Amen to that. Legalize it
You obviously know little about the subject, but your knees do jerk quite well!
Not only that, there will be a massive uptick in marijuana junkies raping white women and listening to negro jazz music!
Well said. The assault on our liberties is far more corrosive to society than the drug.
Why are you suggesting more legislation to solve the moral problem?
Simply take away the Federal laws. With the growth of Federal laws and regulations, we will simply have more criminals.
If someone wants to abuse fried chicken or a controled substance. That's on them. At the current nanny state rate, Colonel Sanders will be the next OBL.
Please read the 18th amendment and then explain how Congress actually has the Constitutional authority to ban marijuana.
The same thing was said about alcohol before prohibition. I say legalize it, but it won’t happen. Too much money made in keeping things the way they are.
I am not a smoker but the way the government has gone after “grass” is remarkable considering its effects.
I think substance abuse is akin to the gun issue. Killers will find a weapon. Addictive personalities will latch onto one thing or another. Marijuana seems to one of the least destructive substances they could abuse. In moderation it appears to be helpful for many conditions.
Because I'm a cautious Canadian :)
Seriously: the kind of legislation I was suggesting is aimed at restricting governmental overkill. You can think of it as an armistice for the Drug War.
Canadian law illegalizes the same substances that U.S. law does, but there's little to no overkill in Canada. That's because there's been no erosion of civil liberties in Canada.
Actually, a Cato report complimented the Prohibitionists for their respect for the Constitution!
then they will want to legalize kiddie porn, open the border, abolish the idea of citizenship itself, abolish the age of consent
all of these ideas come from libertarians too
they are all nuts
“The same thing was said about alcohol before prohibition. I say legalize it, but it won’t happen. Too much money made in keeping things the way they are.”
Bingo. Among the most vocal opponents of legalization are the dealers themselves, and the politicians who are purchased and maintained with that money. That said, I hate vague, bewildered potheads just barely a tic less than I hate mean drunks.
“With the growth of Federal laws and regulations, we will simply have more criminals.”
As intended.
Not only that, expect an ongoing shortage of Twinkies & Ice Cream.
A conservative does not support federal drug laws. A conservative understands the feds are granted no authority by the constitution to so legislate. This is a matter for each state to handle as it deems fit.
Legalization would certainly cut down on crime levels, and could put many of the Mexican drug gangs out of business in no time flat (I don't think the South American criminal cartels who control the cocaine trade and the Asian criminal cartels who control the opium trade want the Mexicans as competitors!). And it would would actually save lives, because by imposing FDA/BATF safety limits there would be less of a threat of people being poisoned by unknown additives in the cannabis (remember the paraquat scare from the early 1980's?).
But the biggest benefit would be the legalization of commercial hemp plant production in the USA, which would mean a large amount of hemp available for clothing, biofuel mass and even as fiber material to make structural materials that are just as strong as carbon fiber but at WAY lower production cost. For example, an automobile now weighing around 3,000 pounds could lose as much as 250 pounds if many of the body panels and other structural parts were made from hemp fiber-based materials, which means potential major gains in fuel economy.
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.