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

Skip to comments.

Recreational weed laws could be in for a change
The Washington Examiner ^ | November 2, 2015 | Washington Examiner Staff

Posted on 11/02/2015 11:48:31 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Sen. Bernie Sanders brought marijuana into the national conversation last week, calling for legalizing and regulating the drug. Under his plan, people in possession of the substance would be treated no differently than people smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol.

By removing marijuana from the list of dangerous drugs, Sanders' move would allow states to legalize the marijuana without Washington having a say.

Beyond campaign speeches meant to appeal to young voters, a host of state ballot initiatives on marijuana will be greeting voters next November. In California, which became the first state to legalize medical marijuana in 1996, residents may vote to legalize recreational use of the drug.

With so many members in Congress, California could become the catalyst for changing federal law. Massachusetts opened its first medical dispensary early this year. A referendum to end cannabis prohibition has been filed, and voters are expected to approve full legalization.

In Nevada, a legalization initiative has already qualified for the 2016 ballot. Vermont's state legislature could become the first in the nation to end cannabis prohibition and replace it with tax-and-regulate policies, directly challenging federal law rather than using a ballot initiative. In Maine, where state legislators rejected recreational pot this summer, the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol said it would put its organization behind a ballot initiative submitted by Legalize Maine, which had by then already collected about 40,000 signatures. It needs only 61,000 by January to place the measure on a statewide ballot.

A Gallup poll released Oct. 21 found that 58 percent of U.S. residents believe marijuana should be legal. — Joana Suleiman

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: California; US: Maine; US: Massachusetts; US: Nevada; US: Vermont
KEYWORDS: 4473; berniesanders; california; election2016; legalization; maine; marijuana; massachusetts; nannystate; nevada; referendum; vermont
Some other subjects are covered on the page.
1 posted on 11/02/2015 11:48:31 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SheLion; Eric Blair 2084; -YYZ-; 31R1O; 383rr; AFreeBird; AGreatPer; Alamo-Girl; Alia; altura; ...

Don’t bogart that Nanny State PING!


2 posted on 11/02/2015 11:50:27 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Democrats and GOP-e: a difference of degree, not philosophy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

I don’t believe ANY polls LOL


3 posted on 11/02/2015 11:53:12 AM PST by stephenjohnbanker (My Batting Average( 1,000) since Nov 2014 (GOPe is that easy to read))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

I don’t believe in obtrusive nanny states. Its an odd country though where you can smoke pot but you can’t smoke a cigar.


4 posted on 11/02/2015 11:58:33 AM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Under the Constitution, It's a States issue anyway. Feds are not lawfully involved. Not that anyone pays attention to the Constitution these days.

/johnny

5 posted on 11/02/2015 12:02:24 PM PST by JRandomFreeper (gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

[[Under his plan, people in possession of the substance would be treated no differently than people smoking cigarettes]]

so in other words they will be treated like crap, arrested, and fiend for smoking anywhere in public?


6 posted on 11/02/2015 12:09:32 PM PST by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Marijuana us will become common. The basis is the worship, by the American people, of the philosophy of eating, drinking, drugging, copulating, evacuating the bowels and snoring.


7 posted on 11/02/2015 12:11:34 PM PST by AEMILIUS PAULUS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Ok, we relax laws on substances believed to be hazardous and addicting.

I’d say this: if we remove barriers to the use of these substances, we should also reduce government money spent taking care of these “victims” of the substances.

With more freedom must come more responsibility.


8 posted on 11/02/2015 12:14:20 PM PST by cymbeline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AEMILIUS PAULUS

I’m not really interested in whether or how we prosecute marijuana use.

I do point out that a drugged citizenry is not the raw material upon which you can build a republic.

Its not the thing that will sink the republic by itself, its just one more data point.


9 posted on 11/02/2015 12:17:36 PM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: marron
I do point out that a drugged citizenry is not the raw material upon which you can build a republic.

Its not the thing that will sink the republic by itself, its just one more data point.

I'm of the considered opinion that a prohibitionist police state is a greater peril to my rights, my taxes, and my republic than marijuana.

Limited government and police states are incompatible, which do you want more?

10 posted on 11/02/2015 12:28:27 PM PST by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3

I understand your point.

My point is separate. Eliminate drug laws and you eliminate all kinds of police abuse.

You can’t build a republic upon the foundation of a police state, which is your point, and it is correct. You also can’t build a republic upon a drugged citizenry. You can’t build a republic upon the foundation of a citizenry that can’t and won’t govern themselves.

Your point, which is correct, is a legal one. Mine is a moral one.


11 posted on 11/02/2015 12:32:47 PM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: marron

So let the states decide and get fedgov out. Agreed?


12 posted on 11/02/2015 12:40:50 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: cymbeline

That’s fine. Private foundations, charities and businesses could probably do much better in treating addictions, anyhow.


13 posted on 11/02/2015 12:43:30 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Democrats and GOP-e: a difference of degree, not philosophy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

I agree. I hate it, watching “Cops” for example, when they start digging through someone’s care “with permission of course” and then the guy goes to jail for a joint.

My point is moral. We have a system of government that is fit only for a moral people, and no other.

By the way, are you OK if a bar owner decides to allow cigars in his bar? I don’t smoke, but its a weird country where you can’t smoke in a bar.


14 posted on 11/02/2015 12:44:55 PM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: marron
My point is moral. We have a system of government that is fit only for a moral people, and no other.

Has marijuana prohibition, which was nonexistent in the US until FDR, made us more moral?

By the way, are you OK if a bar owner decides to allow cigars in his bar?

Hell yes!

15 posted on 11/02/2015 12:49:34 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Fat, drunk and stoned is no way to go through life.


16 posted on 11/02/2015 1:38:39 PM PST by USMCPOP (Father of LCpl. Karl Linn, KIA 1/26/2005 Al Haqlaniyah, Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marron
You also can't build a republic upon a drugged citizenry. You can't build a republic upon the foundation of a citizenry that can't and won't govern themselves.

You might find this interesting.

17 posted on 11/03/2015 6:25:18 AM PST by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Bernie Sanders is marxist scum, IMO.

But on this ONE issue ONLY, I think he is correct.


18 posted on 11/03/2015 8:55:48 AM PST by TheStickman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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