Posted on 02/12/2013 10:54:09 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies
State Sen. Daylin, D-17, of Upper Merion, discussed why he believes it would be beneficial to legalize marijuana during a news conference in Harrisburg Monday afternoon.
Leach said his bill would legalize marijuana for all purposes — both medicinal and recreational.
Leach said people would have to be 21 years old to use marijuana. In addition, he said it would continue to be illegal to drive a vehicle while under the influence of marijuana. People would not be allowed to smoke marijuana in restaurants.
Leach said people would be able to purchase marijuana in state stores. He said people would be allowed to grow up to six marijuana plants with three flowering at one time. He said people would be allowed to transfer — not sell — up to an ounce of marijuana.
“Pot may cause harm, but the harm is far less than that of alcohol,” said Dr. David Nathan, a clinical associate professor at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School.
Nathan called on legislators to legalize marijuana, regulate it and tax it.
Leach said his bill does not specify the tax rate, which would be determined at a later date. He said the proceeds would go toward the state’s general fund and legislators and the governor could decide where to direct the funds.
Neill Franklin, executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, also discussed benefits of marijuana legalization. He said young people are currently recruited to sell marijuana and this bill would move it into a regulated and controlled marketplace.
“Our neighborhood gangs survive off the proceeds of marijuana,” he said.
Leach argued that his bill would not only make the streets of Pennsylvania safer, but would also save the state millions of dollars a year. He cited the Office of National Drug Control Policy, which estimated 24,685 marijuana arrests were made in Pennsylvania in 2006 at a cost of $325.36 million to taxpayers.
In addition to bringing in tax revenue, marijuana legalization would provide a legal treatment alternative for people who are suffering from terminal illness, according to Leach. He said he has plans to introduce the bill today.
He’s talking on WHP 580 Harrisburg right now if anybody’s interested.
I missed it - in what way(s) did they do that?
Luckily for us, we already have a network of state stores.
Posting more democrat agenda news I see. State Sen. Daylin, D-17.. You sure love the left.
‘eat another one’ = having to choke something unpleasant down, like crow.
As do you, since you posted, "Obama [D] administration embraces major new cut in nuclear weapons".
Difference is I was mocking it and bashing it. You’re all out supporting the democrat agenda.
By your latest logic, the FReeper who approvingly posted "Panetta [D] warns of degraded military readiness from spending cuts" is likewise supporting the Democrat agenda. I trust you'll do the principled thing and tell him so.
At least the prohibitionists of the Progressive Era had the decency to pass a Constitutional Amendment. Anti-pot folks just ignore the Constitution.
Yes, I would. The whole point is that these guys who want to legalize drugs complain that the existing laws can’t be enforced... yet the replacement situation they offer isn’t any better. It’s a poor argument for what they really want: more control/more revenue.
True enough - I was figuring on a separate set of them (the stores I’ve seen in operation on news reports in other states seem to be big enough that they wouldn’t have room for alcohol and marijuana in the same space).
Anyway, as I say - the proposal is intended to sounds nice and common sense... but in reality it’s yet another attempt at control and another taxation source.
Do you support PA’s authority under the Tenth Amendment to regulate intrastate marijuana as it sees fit?
Of course I do - but so what?? I would also support the concept of PA regulating abortion under the authority of the tenth amendment - but I'll also argue that allowing abortion is a terrible idea. There's a lot more things that are "possible" that should never happen.
Once more: my point is that I believe this is yet another attempt to propose government control and additional taxation. If you want to "deregulate" or "decriminalize" something, then just do that...make it legal and then back away. Don't create a new government bureaucracy and claim that you're doing everybody a favor. I would have thought that point would be clear enough in this forum.
Yes, I would.
We'll have to agree to disagree; it's clear to me that since young people report that they can get marijuana more easily than beer or cigarettes, age regulation is more enforceable than prohibition.
The whole point is that these guys who want to legalize drugs complain that the existing laws can’t be enforced... yet the replacement situation they offer isn’t any better. It’s a poor argument for what they really want: more control/more revenue.
I agree that SOME who want to legalize drugs offer a regulation scheme that is in SOME respects no more enforceable than prohibition. Their proposals, whatever the motivation, are an improvement over the expensive, broadly unenforceable, and criminal-enriching status quo.
Of course I do - but so what??
So, some FR Drug Warriors don't support that authority.
If you want to "deregulate" or "decriminalize" something, then just do that...make it legal and then back away. Don't create a new government bureaucracy and claim that you're doing everybody a favor. I would have thought that point would be clear enough in this forum.
How did you expect your belief in that first sentence to be clear when this is the first time you've said it? A number of FR Drug Warriors make statements about a new government bureaucracy even though they oppose even a lightly-(or un-)regulated legalization.
Do you support making it legal and then backing away?
Because that wasn't the main point (as I said)... it was "...I believe this is yet another attempt to propose government control and additional taxation."
This Democrat is purporting to provide a benefit to society - to reduce the expenses involved in the War on Drugs. Yet - like all Democrats do - he proposes a large government control program to "correct" the problem... one likely to cost a pile of money to implement, and with a bunch of new regulations and restrictions that (I feel) will be unenforceable (or maybe 'selectively enforceable' is a better phrase).
That next sentence (about 'make it legal and back away') is my general view on things I believe the government should remove itself from. I said it in this context because it's 180° removed from what this guy proposed. He allegedly wants to reduce costs? Provide more freedom? Then fine - do that. But don't pretend to be a defender of the people when you're instituting Yet Another Government Program to add more control and more taxation.
Now all that said: you want to know if I would legalize marijuana or drugs in general (even though I'm trying to stay on topic that this is all really about another Democrat control tactic). I'll answer: No. The reason for this position has nothing to do with personal liberty (for if that was the only consideration, I wouldn't care). I do believe that it leads to damage for not only the users, but to their families and others not even connected with their proclivities.
But IF you say that public policy is improved by legalizing the stuff, then do it the right way - don't pretend to do so and use this as a façade to add more governmental control.
Because that wasn't the main point (as I said)... it was "...I believe this is yet another attempt to propose government control and additional taxation."
And as I said (and you omitted) you left your position easily mistakable for the common FR Drug Warrior smokescreen about a new government bureaucracy even though they oppose even a lightly-(or un-)regulated legalization.
Now all that said: you want to know if I would legalize marijuana or drugs in general (even though I'm trying to stay on topic that this is all really about another Democrat control tactic). I'll answer: No. The reason for this position has nothing to do with personal liberty
Shouldn't personal liberty be a significant consideration for any conservative?
(for if that was the only consideration, I wouldn't care). I do believe that it leads to damage for not only the users,
So do alcohol, tobacco, and Big Gulps - do you favor banning those?
but to their families and others not even connected with their proclivities.
What sort of "damage"? Anything that's the proper business of government?
I’m done.
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.