Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 91

Thread: Fed Marijuana Law Change

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Thumbs up Fed Marijuana Law Change

    I heard on WMUZ yesterday that Ron Paul and Bernie Frank proposed a law to re-legalize weed at the federal level, puting it on the same schedule as alcohol.



    Maybe the will of the people who have spoken loudly for decades, will finally be enacted.


  2. #2
    Regular Member Badger Johnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,217
    Though I'm a teetotaler and not in favor of MJ or alcohol, and don't want my bus driver high, I think there's a good enough reason to decrim. based on it putting a lot of 'pushers' out of business, and by default, freeing up LEOs to police real crime, physical stuff, burglary, car jacking and get away from no-knock warrants for victimless crimes.

    Question is, if it's decrim., will people serving sentences for simple possession (if any) be released?

    Don't know if my view is naive but, istm, making fairly harmless stuff illegal invites more crime via black market enterprise.

    $.02
    A gun in a holster is better than one drawn and dispensing bullets. Concealed forces the latter. - ixtow

    Hi, I'm hypercritical. But I mean no harm, I just like to try to look deeply at life

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Marijuana should not be a federal concern. Regulation or outlawing of marijuana (and other drugs, for that matter) should be a local or State concern. I prefer to live where such drugs are outlawed, but if California wants to get high, let it.

    It is reasonable that the feds provide an information clearing house on drugs, and possibly even provide the States with recommended laws and regulations (that saves each State having to reinvent the wheel), but leave it to the States to decide drug policy for themselves.

    Interstate and international drug trafficking is a legitimate concern of the feds.

    This would create a checkerboard of laws across the nation, but this creates a system of competitive federalism. Some States would liberally allow drug use. That will prove ineffective. Some States will remain restrictive and will use LE inappropriately to enforce those restrictions. That will prove ineffective too. The competition of different systems will promote the most effective systems, cause the most ineffective systems to disappear, and provide the people with a level of choice that maximizes Liberty.

    Federalism, horizontal separation of powers, was one of the best ideas of the Framers. We need to get back to it.

    $.03 (continuing the arithmetic sequence with entry t sub 3)
    Last edited by eye95; 06-24-2011 at 01:40 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    If the Federal prohibition on "Marijuana" (actually it is illegal to grow cannabis if ANY kind in the US without a special tax stamp, not just the kind you smoke) as effected by the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 had been even MARGINALLY based in any sort of legitimate scientific, medical, or criminological data, then perhaps there would be even one atom of legitimacy to arguing FOR any sort of regulation on "Marijuana" on ANY level--state, federal, or local...

    But because the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 was ENTIRELY based on overt racism, classism, and the collusion between I.E.DuPont, the Hearst newspaper empire, and Harry J. Anslinger, the head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (a sociopathic bureaucratic climber and virulent racist and anti-Semite) in an attempt to eliminate the ONLY natural fiber that offered competition to wood pulp or nylon, there is simply NO legal, medical, scientific, criminological, or MORAL ground to stand on for the continued prohibition of "Marijuana".

    "Marijuana" Prohibition is one of the last vestiges of "Jim Crow" law on the Federal level (well, aside from ALL Federal "gun control" laws), and should be an embarrassment and a moral outrage to anyone with a conscience, knowledge of history, or a modicum of humanity...

    Not to mention, that legalizing Cannabis would perhaps be the single most powerful tool to revitalizing the Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Construction sectors in the US, and would dramatically reduce our dependency on oil for fuel and chemical feedstocks...
    Last edited by Dreamer; 06-24-2011 at 04:14 PM.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by Badger Johnson View Post
    ....don't want my bus driver high, ....
    Is your bus driver drunk on alchohol now? I sure hope not!

    I'm not a doper or a drinker, but I use tobacco. I wonder if the taxed packages of MJ will have graghic photos on them of people laying around doing nothin', kind of like the commercial cigarettes will soon require photos of sick people?

    I'm pretty indifferent as to wether or not MJ is decriminalized, but I am deadset against taxing "sin". You cannot legislate morality. Taxes allow black markets to exist in my opinion.

    You know how most states require a "license" to carry concealed? Yeah, that's a tax.
    Exodus 21:12-14

    Click here for some Common Sense

  6. #6
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    I am very much for the federal decriminalization of all drugs, MJ is a good start. The drug problem is a medical problem, that, because it is a legal problem now, makes it ripe for the same types that ruled during the prohibition of alcohol.

    The only thing the "war on drugs" has done is make a lot of criminals very wealthy, and put a lot of people in jail that have no reason to be there. (not counting the people who have died in "drug raids", so at the wrong address.

    If a state or local government wants to be so shortsighted as to keep it up, that is their problem, the fed should have nothing to do with it. There are over the counter drugs that are more dangerous to the public than MJ is. No, I do not use, nor ever have used MJ or any other illegal drug.

    Never forget, Prohibition brought you the NFA 34.
    Last edited by hermannr; 06-24-2011 at 08:46 PM.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Bunch of good posts here.

    Even eye95's contribution is reasonable, while I may disagree with some of his preferences.

    I'd also like to point out that this is one of those times where, paranoid conspiracy-theorist or not, Dreamer is basically right on the money.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Some people cant function on pot, some can, it affects different people differently. If the bus driver cant drive on it, then he shouldn't, some people function better on it. If he is or isnt driving while high, has nothing to do with the law. If he wants to smoke, he isnt waiting for the .gov to give him permission or not.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    I'd also like to point out that this is one of those times where, paranoid conspiracy-theorist or not, Dreamer is basically right on the money.

    I'll take that s a compliment...

    You know what the difference between an "historian" and a "conspiracy theorist" is?

    An "historian" uses meticulous research, prolific citations, and deductive reasoning to convince you that they know what caused events that already occurred.

    A "conspiracy theorist" uses meticulous research, prolific citations, and deductive reasoning to explain how past and recent events are leading to events in the future.

    It's just a matter of time...
    Last edited by Dreamer; 06-25-2011 at 12:00 AM.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  10. #10
    Regular Member Sabotage70's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Fabulous Las Vegas, NV, ,
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    If the Federal prohibition on "Marijuana" (actually it is illegal to grow cannabis if ANY kind in the US without a special tax stamp, not just the kind you smoke) as effected by the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 had been even MARGINALLY based in any sort of legitimate scientific, medical, or criminological data, then perhaps there would be even one atom of legitimacy to arguing FOR any sort of regulation on "Marijuana" on ANY level--state, federal, or local...

    But because the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 was ENTIRELY based on overt racism, classism, and the collusion between I.E.DuPont, the Hearst newspaper empire, and Harry J. Anslinger, the head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (a sociopathic bureaucratic climber and virulent racist and anti-Semite) in an attempt to eliminate the ONLY natural fiber that offered competition to wood pulp or nylon, there is simply NO legal, medical, scientific, criminological, or MORAL ground to stand on for the continued prohibition of "Marijuana".

    "Marijuana" Prohibition is one of the last vestiges of "Jim Crow" law on the Federal level (well, aside from ALL Federal "gun control" laws), and should be an embarrassment and a moral outrage to anyone with a conscience, knowledge of history, or a modicum of humanity...

    Not to mention, that legalizing Cannabis would perhaps be the single most powerful tool to revitalizing the Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Construction sectors in the US, and would dramatically reduce our dependency on oil for fuel and chemical feedstocks...
    Very well put. You must have read some of the same stuff I have. Nobody ever ask themselves why is it illegal in the first place.

    Why is Marijuana Illegal?
    EDC=XDm40 16+1+16+16

    RED DRAGONS!!!!

  11. #11
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Sabotage70 View Post
    Very well put. You must have read some of the same stuff I have. Nobody ever ask themselves why is it illegal in the first place.

    Why is Marijuana Illegal?
    I actually met Jack Herer back in the early 1990s in DC, and had him autograph a copy of his book "The Emperor Wears No Clothes"...

    It's one of the most prized books in my library.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Thumbs up

    A real American Hero that one.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Badger Johnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,217
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    Some people cant function on pot, some can, it affects different people differently. If the bus driver cant drive on it, then he shouldn't, some people function better on it. If he is or isnt driving while high, has nothing to do with the law. If he wants to smoke, he isnt waiting for the .gov to give him permission or not.
    Yes, thanks for defining that point. Let me amend and say 'I don't want my bus driver driving impaired' and they can test for impairment. What he's drinking or smoking is really irrelevant and the issue is his ability, to drive safely and effectively.
    A gun in a holster is better than one drawn and dispensing bullets. Concealed forces the latter. - ixtow

    Hi, I'm hypercritical. But I mean no harm, I just like to try to look deeply at life

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Agreed, safety is the issue. The laws have had no useful impact on its use.

  15. #15
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Sure, because the most pressing problem facing our country is the right to get stoned.

    Insert sarcasm here.
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by oak1971 View Post
    Sure, because the most pressing problem facing our country is the right to get stoned.

    Insert sarcasm here.
    Considering the scope and scale of the negative effects of prohibition, I'd say, yeah, taking steps to end it is one of the most pressing problems facing our country, without question.

    Or do you like the thought of police "mistakenly" serving a no-knock warrant on your home based on the information from a confidential "informant", and carrying out a "dynamic entry" while you're asleep with a loaded pistol by your bed?

    Prohibition hath wrought that.
    Last edited by marshaul; 06-25-2011 at 03:33 AM.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    I'll take that s a compliment...

    You know what the difference between an "historian" and a "conspiracy theorist" is?

    An "historian" uses meticulous research, prolific citations, and deductive reasoning to convince you that they know what caused events that already occurred.

    A "conspiracy theorist" uses meticulous research, prolific citations, and deductive reasoning to explain how past and recent events are leading to events in the future.

    It's just a matter of time...
    You should take it as a compliment. I don't necessarily share all your conclusions, but I'm right there with you on many others, and have been for some time.

    Regarding history, I'd simply point out that a careful reading of it supports many of your assertions, even some seemingly wild ones.

    Regarding conspiracies, while they undoubtedly exist, I tend to take the "headless blunder" view for the most part. This, however, certainly doesn't preclude many of these explanations which might seem as only possibly arising out of conspiracy, but which can actually be explained through careful analysis of individual incentive and its amalgamated effect.
    Last edited by marshaul; 06-25-2011 at 03:30 AM.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Quote Originally Posted by oak1971 View Post
    Sure, because the most pressing problem facing our country is the right to get stoned.

    Insert sarcasm here.
    It isnt about getting stoned. That's easy despite the law.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509
    Prohibition of alcohol required the 18th Amendment (ratified in 1919), to give the federal government any authority over the matter.

    That authority was revoked by passage of the 21st Amendment (ratified in 1933). So, similar prohibitions regarding marijuana, having nothing to do with actual interstate commerce, must require a constitutional amendment, right?

    Well. So one might think, until fast-forwarding less than 10 years into the future. In 1942, SCOTUS ruled that an Ohio farmer named Roscoe Filburn could rightly be fined 49 cents per bushel of wheat above what the federal government said he was allowed to grow, even though the wheat was grown and consumed entirely on his own farm (as livestock feed and wheat flour for his family). The logic was that by growing his own wheat, he wasn't buying wheat/feed/flour from others, some of which might come from other states, thus affecting interstate commerce and making wheat grown and consumed at home subject to congressional oversight.

    Absurd? Yes. Relevance to marijuana laws? Gonzales v. Raich.

    Relying on their absurd ruling in Wickard, and their slavish dependence upon stare decisis, the Court compounded their predecessors' previous idiocy by ruling that marijuana grown, sold, and consumed entirely within one state, in accordance with that state's laws, is subject to the interstate commerce clause because it's possible that an out-of-state drug dealer had been deprived of his illegal trade by the medical patient who grew and consumed his own herbal remedy.

    The Gun Free School Zones Act relies upon the same tenuous --vaporous, even-- connection to "interstate commerce".

    It's time to cast these horrible misinterpretations of the Constitution aside. I don't know how we'll do that, short of hitting the reset button (and I don't think we're at that point, yet).

    That makes it all the more maddening: all thinking people can clearly see where SCOTUS is logically wrong, but there's nothing we can do about it.
    Last edited by KBCraig; 06-25-2011 at 03:54 AM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Urban Skeet City, Alabama
    Posts
    897
    We've got too many stoners in jail, and these are people who are typically arrested of the crime of being stupid in front of a cop. Decriminalizing frees up space for other more dangerous folks.

    I don't think you'll see someone stealing aluminum or copper to buy weed. But a stimulant like cocaine or meth, you'll see people scale building in broad light to buy....
    It takes a village to raise an idiot.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    77
    It shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

    I have never taken a hit, never been tempted, but if tobacco is legal considering the fact that it causes cancer, yet they leave the choice to smoke it or not to individuals, the same should be done about "maryjewanna", mmmkay?


    But I could only imagine the lines in walmart at the smoke line!

    Stop chasing drugs and put real criminals in jail.

    Sent from my HTC EVO 4G using tapatalk!

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    The only good thing about prohibition is the high you get when you get off probation.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Regarding conspiracies, while they undoubtedly exist, I tend to take the "headless blunder" view for the most part. This, however, certainly doesn't preclude many of these explanations which might seem as only possibly arising out of conspiracy, but which can actually be explained through careful analysis of individual incentive and its amalgamated effect.

    Oh, so you must be one of those "coincidence theorist" then...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  24. #24
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by oak1971 View Post
    Sure, because the most pressing problem facing our country is the right to get stoned.

    The right to do with one's body and consciousness as one pleases in the privacy of one's own home is one of the most FUNDAMENTAL and sacred of ALL human rights.

    When the "state" can start telling you how you can perceive reality, and what you can and cannot do to alter, change, or modify what goes on inside your own body, then all the other "rights" are essentially superficial, and cannot be expected to be guaranteed...

    If we're going to make SOME mind-altering "drugs" illegal because of "health" or "safety" reasons, we should make them ALL illegal. Any other position is hypocritical and disingenuous.

    Personal control over one's own body is the ULTIMATE sovereignty issue...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  25. #25
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    If the Federal prohibition on "Marijuana" (actually it is illegal to grow cannabis if ANY kind in the US without a special tax stamp, not just the kind you smoke) as effected by the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 had been even MARGINALLY based in any sort of legitimate scientific, medical, or criminological data, then perhaps there would be even one atom of legitimacy to arguing FOR any sort of regulation on "Marijuana" on ANY level--state, federal, or local...

    But because the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 was ENTIRELY based on overt racism, classism, and the collusion between I.E.DuPont, the Hearst newspaper empire, and Harry J. Anslinger, the head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (a sociopathic bureaucratic climber and virulent racist and anti-Semite) in an attempt to eliminate the ONLY natural fiber that offered competition to wood pulp or nylon, there is simply NO legal, medical, scientific, criminological, or MORAL ground to stand on for the continued prohibition of "Marijuana".

    "Marijuana" Prohibition is one of the last vestiges of "Jim Crow" law on the Federal level (well, aside from ALL Federal "gun control" laws), and should be an embarrassment and a moral outrage to anyone with a conscience, knowledge of history, or a modicum of humanity...

    Not to mention, that legalizing Cannabis would perhaps be the single most powerful tool to revitalizing the Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Construction sectors in the US, and would dramatically reduce our dependency on oil for fuel and chemical feedstocks...
    Very well put, this would be a major victory for states that decided to set up sales and taxation of marijuana. It would produce huge proffits for states, and at the same time take a big bite out of prison/jail populations, something that has a drain on almost every state/county/city budget. Not to mention maybe more people would decide to smoke this product instead of consuming alcohol. I would much rather pass someone on the road that has smoked a bowl, than someone that has been drinking alcohol. Alcohol has severe effects on the entire body, makes you completely unable to control yourself and can cause death. Marijuana does none of these, it comes straight from the dirt ready for consumption, unlike alcohol that must be processed. It would be nice if this passed, but I dont see it happening.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •