Barney Frank to propose marijuana decriminalization?
posted at 9:36 am on March 23, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Can anyone take a statement on Bill Maher’s HBO show seriously? Barney Frank told Maher on Real Time that he would introduce legislation in Congress to decriminalize small amounts of pot, asserting that its illegal status is out of step with the American public. When asked, an aide had heard nothing of it until Frank’s HBO appearance:
Rep. Barney Frank will soon introduce legislation to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana, the Massachusetts Democrat said during an appearance on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher.” …
Frank has introduced legislation in previous years to allow the use of “medical marijuana,” although the bills never made it out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Asked by Maher as to why he would push a pot decriminalization bill now, Frank said the American public has already decided that personal use of marijuana is not a problem.
Frank claimed he would call it the “Make Room for Serious Criminals” bill. The intent would be to take the burden of marijuana investigations, arrests, trials, and encarceration off of an overtaxed justice system and allow resources to go after more serious crimes. Frank called incarceration for smoking marijuana “silly” and that lawmakers had to catch up to public sensibilities on marijuana.
I’m not necessarily opposed to legalization, but even with that, Frank oversells the concept. Most people caught smoking marijuana don’t serve any jail time at all. In most places, it’s not even a serious misdemeanor, and in many jurisdictions it’s more of an infraction. Convictions for personal use usually result in fines and sometimes in compulsory rehab, but it’s been decades since individual users have been jailed for simply smoking a joint.
The big drain on law enforcement resources come from interdicting the larger traffic in marijuana, at the border and in the interior. It doesn’t sound as though Frank will propose that marijuana becomes completely legal, and so it will do very little to “make room for serious criminals”. It also imposes a forced legalization on states and communities that the federal government has no business mandating. In fact, the only action Congress can take is to remove the federal bans on marijuana, including importation, so that states can make their own decisions on legalization.
Should Congress take that kind of action? The decades of prohibition on marijuana have done little to stem its popularity and abuse. In terms of intoxication, it has no worse effects than alcohol, and some argue considerably less impairment. A regulated marijuana industry could dry up the gang economics in its trade and ensure some safety for the users. It would also free resources to fight the distribution of far worse substances, such as heroin and cocaine. On the other hand, its status as a gateway drug could drive up other forms of abuse, and federal decriminalization could call into question the rest of the war on drugs that has thus far been a failure that has incarcerated large numbers of Americans and driven violent behavior between rival “distributors” in their markets.
We know that what we’ve been doing hasn’t worked. Is it time to acknowledge a new paradigm on marijuana? Perhaps — but what Frank proposed will have no effect at all.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 »
I’ve always thought that pot should be 100% legal. It would lose its status as a “gateway drug” and all those proceeds from selling pot would be going into the economy and not some mobster/gang member’s pocket. But it’s none of the federal government’s business. It’s an issue for the states, not Barney Frank.
malan89 on March 23, 2008 at 9:41 AM
The whole argument is “one toke over the line” !
DoctorDentons on March 23, 2008 at 9:42 AM
What he (or she) said.
Typhoon on March 23, 2008 at 9:44 AM
I don’t advocate or recommend the use of nor do I use marijuana but I would have no problem if this bill passed. IMO, the war on drugs, though fought with good intentions often creates a bigger problem than it solves, crime. How many millions of dollars are spent to investigate, seize and punish those who move and sell every ton of drugs yet how many more tons get by anyways? Like Prohibition, it’s a futile effort.
Yakko77 on March 23, 2008 at 9:44 AM
Good. I’m sure libertarian Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher of California, will soon co-sponsor the bill. More Republicans support legalizing marijuana in small amounts, than Nanny-stater Democrats.
Of course, the liberal media never makes mention of that.
ericdondero on March 23, 2008 at 9:45 AM
The country can not stop murders either, does this also apply?
Wade on March 23, 2008 at 9:50 AM
Keep it illegal. We are not Canada, we are not Europe. We have laws prohibiting drug use for a reason.
tx2654 on March 23, 2008 at 9:52 AM
As a libertarian, don’t you think that individual states should decide if and at what level they want legalization? I’m all for it, but it shouldn’t be coming from the Federal Government.
malan89 on March 23, 2008 at 9:56 AM
I was arrested and jailed one time by a cowboy cop for having a couple of marijuana SEEDS in my ashtray of my car (ie. I wasn’t smoking, I didn’t even have any). This was when I was in college. I was handcuffed in the jail for about 6 hours. For a while I was sitting next to a guy (uncuffed) who was arrested for battery. He asked me why I was there I told him I killed someone for asking too many questions. . . and he left me alone. I lost my job and I had to get an expensive lawyer to clear my record.
Don’t tell me that cops don’t just L-O-V-E to bust a ‘dope head’ any ole ‘dope head’ will do.
The government should not be in a position to make marijuana or any other drug illegal. . . but the ‘good ole’ FDA knows that they can’t regulate something that grows like a ‘weed’. The reason it is illegal is the FDA, because they wouldn’t have any power over it if it were legal.
George Washington grew marijuana. Hemp is the most powerful fiber known to man good for making rope and clothes. The US federal government is absolutely hampering the success of this country with their over-reaching regulation and criminalization of something that is found in nature.
The only people that criminalizing marijuana benefits is the drug cartels. The government is merely oppressing its people when it makes things like this illegal. Criminalization of marijuana costs this country 50 billion dollars a year. The government could tax it and generate another 50 billion dollars a year. Do the math and that’s a 100 billion dollar waste of a law.
Criminalization of marijuana is one of the dumbest laws our country has ever created.
ThackerAgency on March 23, 2008 at 9:58 AM
Bad analogy, since there’s a huge difference between smoking a joint and wrongfully taking a life. I’m sure you understand that.
NorthernCross on March 23, 2008 at 9:58 AM
Nice argument. . . so now smoking pot is as bad as murder. Tell me again which commandment pot smoking is in the Bible? I know thou shalt not kill is one, but I don’t recall thou shalt not smoke pot.
ThackerAgency on March 23, 2008 at 9:59 AM
Really? What’s the reason for prohibiting marijuana use? Is it the same reason for prohibiting alcohol and tobacco consumption?
NorthernCross on March 23, 2008 at 9:59 AM
I’ve seen studies that dispute its status as a “gateway drug.” Personally I would argue that lies and exaggerations about it have led some to believe that the government is also lying about actual dangerous substances. In short, the anti-weed hysteria creates a gateway effect - “What else are they lying about?”
JimRich on March 23, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Frank has an excellent idea. We need to be a little more relaxed about hemp. I would like to use hemp seed oil to flavor my food, but can’t afford to do so, as hemp seed oil is too expensive. It shouldn’t be. To make hemp seed oil as free of THC as appropriate for healthy use of the oil is cheap. To make as free of THC as our current paranoid policy is expensive. This is sad because it hemp seed oil is a good source of essential fatty acids. I use flax seed oil now, but would like to have a choice.
Attorney General Ashcroft was responsible for the current insane standard of THC level in hemp seed foods. They need to be returned to the standards of the 1990’s.
thuja on March 23, 2008 at 10:04 AM
Will it stop there? You know it won’t. The issue isn’t any different than abortion or gun control, in that sense. Each side fears if they compromise it is the first step down that slippery slope, and sadly they are right. Given a small victory, why not push for more? Both sides do it and both sides fear it, for that reason.
a capella on March 23, 2008 at 10:07 AM
Personally I think the reason Bawney Fwank may want to decriminalize pot is because the only way he can get someone interested in him, is if they are so high they can’t see his face.
Ceroth on March 23, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Just a side question:
Grown, processed, and sold in the same manner as alcoholic beverages, and taxed at a rate commensurate with tobacco…
What kind of revenue are we talking about here?
Forget the fact that it would put a lot of farmers back to work…
heldmyw on March 23, 2008 at 10:13 AM
I’m shocked that people would advocate legalizing a drug that makes people more stupid! :) I don’t think that’s what this country needs right now.
I do love the “making clothes and rope from hemp” argument. Funny stuff, I know if we could only have hemp ropes, we’d be unstoppable. I mean, nylon or even kevlar ropes are so weak.
100 billion dollars a year, huh? So, if it was legal it would be worth the same as it is now? You cry about the government oppression by making it illegal, but are perfectly willing to allow the government to tax it?
I guess they can tax all those new hemp clothes people will be wearing.
Opium and cocaine are natural, too, they should be legal!
I just love pointing out how idiotic pot-heads are, based on their arguments.
The funny thing is, I’m not really not sold on this issue either way, but the moronic arguments from potheads are fun to read. I also love the anecdtodal evidence usually provided, with a hint of government conspiracy thrown in.
I have my own anecdotal evidence, all the potheads I grew up with, worked with and/or still know are losers. It’s just a fact, sorry.
reaganaut on March 23, 2008 at 10:14 AM
a capella, the Constitution was written to restrict the government - not to give Americans ‘rights’.
The federal government was not set up to criminalize drugs like this. Marijuana was legal for 150 years and has only been illegal for the past 60 (based on false government propaganda about what people on marijuana might do).
Abortion is murder to most Americans and it takes rights away from another American. This form of murder has only been legal for 35 years. Gun control is something that the government is not allowed to do either (as is EXPLICITLY stated in the Constitution).
Laws are simple. The government is only interested in more power - any power. Prohibition was a bad idea too. The criminalization of marijuana is like a ‘government religion’ that says smoking marijuana will cause you to go to hell (jail).
ThackerAgency on March 23, 2008 at 10:17 AM
The prohibition of Marijuana exists as added value for law enforcement, lawyers and judges. Let’s just look at it logically. It’s a variation of a sedative, like Alcohol. It is, in no way, more sedating or additionally impairing than Alcohol. It’s made from essentially the same thing as Alcohol, plants. Why is one legal and the other illegal? There is no reasonable explanation. For sure, Alcohol is a far more debilitating substance…alcoholism, DUI Deaths etc. Similarly Cigarettes are far more dangerous and remain legal. I’m not for banning either cigarettes or alcohol. So it’s partially outdated social stigma and aid in funding the criminal justice system that it remains illegal. The notion that people are IN PRISON for selling a substance that’s less lethal and less addicting and less debilitating that Cigarettes and alcohol is troubling.
AYNBLAND on March 23, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Oh yeah, they love it! Legalize pot and overall crimes will drop. The gangs won’t have $$$ to buy weapons and murders will drop. It will also have an affect on illegal immigration. A lot of the smugglers keep their business going with pot. Take that away, let’s see what happens. But it has to start with the states.
malan89 on March 23, 2008 at 10:21 AM
I’m going to grow the opium poppy in my front yard when spring starts. I’m guessing it is legal to do so, as I bought the seeds in a store.
thuja on March 23, 2008 at 10:25 AM
Oh yeah REAGANaut. . . that ‘just say no’ campaign was so successful from your hero Reagan that it is much more widely available now and more potent than ever.
You haven’t seen the studies about the effects of de-criminalizing marijuana. How about that ‘flawless’ government argument that there is ‘no medical benefit to marijuana’ - yet they spent all of your tax dollars trying to make a synthetic marijuana - in case you need it for medicinal purposes (I remind you that they said that it has NO MEDICAL BENEFIT at all).
The arguments for making something illegal are what are laughable. The fact is that we don’t really know what marijuana can or can’t do because of the government restrictions.
My argument is that what I do in the privacy of my own home to myself is none of the governments’ business.
And yes, reaganite, there are studies that show the legalization of the drug would generate much more revenue than the 100 billion I conservatively proposed. Of course, you’d much rather believe the government’s ‘refer madness’ hype that marijuana makes you go psycho and kill people, or commit suicide. Oh yeah, you much prefer doctors prescribing anti-depressants that are much more potent and dangerous than marijuana ever would be.
I love the sanctimonious ‘holier than thou’ attitude of people like you who -
You’d be surprised if you knew how many people actually smoke pot. 100% of the millionaire NBA stars are ‘potheads’. . . how are they doin?
ThackerAgency on March 23, 2008 at 10:25 AM
I have never understood why its a crime for someone to want to unwind at home after a day’s work with a joint.
Alcohol is far more destructive. Have you ever heard someone say “Don’t mind him, he’s had too much to smoke”? Has pot ever led to domestic violence? I don’t even buy the gateway drug theory. Here in Seattle, I know many casual smokers and none of them have ever been tempted to do any hardcore drug and this is supposedly the heroin capital although I have never seen it personally.
This would have been legal a long time ago if it wasn’t for Big Pharm and Big Cotton lobbying against it.
Greenhorn on March 23, 2008 at 10:27 AM
Keep it illegal. We are not Canada, we are not Europe. We have laws prohibiting drug use for a reason.
tx2654 on March 23, 2008 at 9:52 AM
This sort of comment is the kind that makes me wonder who re-defined what a “Conservative” is. This smacks of Religious Right platitudes not Conservative philosophy. How exactly can you and I be a “Conservative” and have the Government in the business of arresting and jailing people for selling or using an arbitrary substance when there is no defensible argument why it’s worse than other substances that are legal. Is that what our Founding Father would agree with? Don’t get me wrong, I hate hippies as much as the next guy but for Christ’s sake Ann Coulter smokes pot, Bill Buckley was for its legalization.
AYNBLAND on March 23, 2008 at 10:29 AM
An anti-pot crusader named David Toma came to my school in 1984 and told all of us the story of a couple that got high on pot, got the munchies, and decided to put their baby into the oven. I was only 12 and could see through this as the BS that it was. After the assembly I was startled and frightened to see kids meeting with him privately to rat out their parents. I’ll gladly take being an idiot or moron over being an outright liar and fearmonger.
JimRich on March 23, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Well, it is currently a federal issue. California has decided that marijuana is legal for medical use, both for the user and the supplier, and yet the Federal government maintains it is illegal (correctly, it is still a violation of federal law) and reserves the right to prosecute such use/trade, and have in fact done so.
While Frank’s bill isn’t going to have a huge impact, it will have some impact, and it looks largely positive to me.
Pablo on March 23, 2008 at 10:33 AM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=iUvEZ-4lmr8
Hicks said it best.
Mofugger on March 23, 2008 at 10:40 AM
or how about this one.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CU6AVtQethw
Mofugger on March 23, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Noble cause. Ignoble sponsor.
petefrt on March 23, 2008 at 10:43 AM
As long as Barney is going libertarian, why doesn’t he move to decriminalize prostitution, so his boyfriend can open up the brothel in Barney’s home again?
jgapinoy on March 23, 2008 at 10:46 AM
For Christ’s sake? I don’t think so.
Oh, you were using the Lord’s name in vain?
It is for offenses like that, as well as smoking pot, that Christ died on the cross.
Today we celebrate that he didn’t stay dead!
jgapinoy on March 23, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Legalize it and tax it…
Folks, reality check. It is NOT going to stop. People are STILL going to use it. We spend billions and billions fighting a loosing battle… so why not legalize it and make it SAFER to use?
Romeo13 on March 23, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Wade on March 23, 2008 at 10:51 AM
What’s ridiculous about pointing out that prohibition was a failure?
Pablo on March 23, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Personally, I think pot’s status as a illegal and “taboo” drug has as much to do with it being a “gateway” drug than anything else.
You hear growing up that pot is “bad,” then one summer afternoon before college you try some, and you know what, it’s really not all that bad. Of course, if you abuse it, it’s bad.
But once you realize there’s all these BS scare tactics going on about drugs, you start to wonder about other drugs.
If you’re the type of person who’s willing to cross the line to try pot, you’re probably willing to try other stuff. It’s not the drug itself that has a “gateway” affect, but it’s place in our society and the type of person who’s willing to go to that place is more likely to try other stuff.
If we were just more open and frank about the effects, upsides and downsides of drugs in this country, it would help cut down on abuse, instead of just saying “drugs are bad.”
Tom_Shipley on March 23, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Marijuana as it is generally consumed, has a very low toxicity. The same cannot be said of substances like home-brewed meth, opium, or even Ecstasy.
Like alcohol, marijuana as it is generally consumed (smoked or baked whole herb/resin in food) has negative side effects that kick in before toxicity becomes a danger. Alcohol as it is generally consumed (not beer-bonging bottles of tequila) causes you to vomit and pass out before alcohol toxicity happens, and you’d have to smoke a barn full of pot or eat a barn full of hash brownies in one sitting to have THC toxicity. Your lungs or stomach will tell you to frak off long before you reach that point.
I’d have many fewer problems seeing pot legalized than many other currently illegal substances.
Sekhmet on March 23, 2008 at 10:56 AM
You need to think deeper on the 2 posts. It has to do with comparison’s of reason not the severity of the crime. What the hell does the bible have to do with any of this? Maybe you could quote the koran, also. Huh?
Wade on March 23, 2008 at 10:56 AM
We don’t spend “billions & billions” arresting people for one joint.
jgapinoy on March 23, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Glad we’ve had him in Congress all these years. What other vital legislation has he sponsored? Can you imagine being a Congressman simply because you’re gay? That’s like being a President because you’re black or a woman.
JiangxiDad on March 23, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Barney Frank seems likely just to embarrass the Democrats.
Kralizec on March 23, 2008 at 10:59 AM
not getting their PhD’s. LOL.
My 45-55 year old pot head friends can’t string a coherent sentence together. Love em, but that’s not the point.
JiangxiDad on March 23, 2008 at 11:00 AM
If it is an issue where CA wants to allow medical marijuana and the Feds won’t let them, then I support giving the full power to CA. I’m not totally familiar with California’s laws on pot, as I neither live in California or smoke doobies.
malan89 on March 23, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Having the taxpayers pay for the legal process and the jail and prison costs for someone smoking a joint is one of the dumbest things that we do. Smoking pot is also dumb as hell, but in the end, it should be a person’s business what state they are in so long as they are not driving or hurting someone else.
Alcohol is as much bigger cause of crime that pot so this is just cultural thing.
Let’s use the prison system for real criminals like rapists and murderers and people who committ assaults and insurance executives.
georgealbert on March 23, 2008 at 11:01 AM
An anti-pot crusader named David Toma came to my school in 1984 and told all of us the story of a couple that got high on pot, got the munchies, and decided to put their baby into the oven. I was only 12 and could see through this as the BS that it was
My favorite episode of Dragnet features a hippy couple named the Shipleys who put their baby in a bath, get high, forget about the baby and come back to find it drowned… major buzz kill!
Tom_Shipley on March 23, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Nothing. Ability to control Illegal immigrant ion is a failure also, does than mean we as a society should accept it?
The original post compares the reason to legalize pot is because of the failure of another law (in this case prohibition). That is what is ridiculous, because one law fails is never a reason to change another law.
Wade on March 23, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Opium and cocaine are natural, too, they should be legal!
You can’t grow opium, cocaine or heroin… they need to be refined. Pot you can grow and smoke.
Tom_Shipley on March 23, 2008 at 11:08 AM
the law is in compleat violation of the 10th amendment , interstate commerce act should never trump the right of states . and what is considered a small amount ? 1 oz 1/4 lbs 3 lbs ???
Mojack420 on March 23, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Comparing pot to alcohol has two problems. The first, and greater, is that it lingers in the body at low levels for far longer. A regular user may build up a ‘base level’ that will take months to clear, and is significant enough to impair driving or machine operation.
The lesser problem is that in its smoked form it is still very bad for the lungs, worse even than tobacco.
njcommuter on March 23, 2008 at 11:15 AM
I think the people that say they know people who smoke pot and they are really stupid…are lies.
I don’t smoke, but I have Many friends that Do smoke on a regular basis. Have 6 figure incomes, are in NO way stupid or unproductive.
On the other hand, I also have friends that have joined AA and the likes because alcohol has all but ruined their lives.
bridgetown on March 23, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Note, that last weekend the Alaska Republican Party passed a resolution in favor of legalizing hemp for industrial production. (See write up over at www.mainstreamlibertarian.com) Last year, the House Republican leader of the North Dakota Legislature was pushing similar legislation and got national media over it, even a front page write up in USAToday.
The Republican Party is much more libertarian on the marijuana issue than many believe.
This is one issue, where Republicans can pick up a great deal of libertarian swing voter support, even amongst hardline Libertarian Party folks.
And even more importantly, it’s an issue we can trump the Nanny-State Democrats on. The more Pro-Marijuana legalization we Republicans appear, the less they’ll be able to label us as anti-Youth, un-hip, Conservative Prudes.
Let’s follow the example of the Alaska Republican Party, and make legal marijuana in small amounts part of the GOP platform nationwide!
ericdondero on March 23, 2008 at 11:17 AM
It’s Easter so I’ll leave the Barney Frank will introduce jokes alone! I’m with the legalize and tax it crowd on this issue. A long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away I recall being a far bigger menace to society when I was boozed up than I ever did as a stoner.
dmann on March 23, 2008 at 11:19 AM
A regular user may build up a ‘base level’ that will take months to clear, and is significant enough to impair driving or machine operation.
Are you trying to say that if I get high today, for the next week or month it’ll impair my ability to drive a car?
If I had to choose to drive with someone who was really high or really drunk, I’d choose neither. If I had to choose to drive with someone who was kind of high or someone who was drunk, i’d choose someone who was kind of high.
The lesser problem is that in its smoked form it is still very bad for the lungs, worse even than tobacco.
Yeah, and alcohol is very bad for your liver.
Tom_Shipley on March 23, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Pot (no pun intended), meet kettle.
Because, on the other hand, it’s about as easy to denigrate and ridicule the re-cycled arguments of those insisting on controlling cannabis, most of which are spin-offs and moralizations from an overbearing nanny-state mentality advocating the imposition of others’ judgement about what many feel should be a purely personal choice issue. The agenda of the prohibitionistic movements of the early 20th century.
The easiest way to consider the validity of claims of societal destruction absent this ’save them from themselves, and us’ approach is to review the state of things before the horrendously corrosive and offensive substances were restricted in the first place. Yep, that’s right, the 1870’s, 1880’s, 1890’s, and 1900’s were just one big fuzzy haze of drug-and-drink-addled lunatics wreaking havoc and mayhem in the streets on an hourly basis. Or not. But there is probably anecdotal evidence about people with a whole raft of other socially undesirable issues also used the demon weed, which, when recounted with the requisite level of hystrionics, probably sounds (and sounded, no doubt) irrefutably compelling.
Aside from mocking the additional uses of a product - considering how ludicrous the concept that distilled spirits or fermented liquids have any other use besides the inducement of splitting headaches, nausea and vomiting, along with impaired cognitive abilities, well, aside from plain derision, I see little in the way of a compelling argument or idea for allowing the non-intoxicating uses of cannabis, hemp, and hemp oil derivatives. About the only room to really operate in that arena without drawing a flag on the play would be the statement of personal preference for clothing of different, non-hemp fabrics due to aesthetics or fashion considerations. And in other news, I might not agree with your selection of personal conveyance, preferring Chevy over Ford.
As far as the discussion goes concerning the correctness of Rep. Frank introducing this as a federal measure - it’s an appropriate action for the issue. For the primary reason that it’s something that the federal level of government has imposed sanction upon - and until such sanction is lifted or modified, the individual states’ efforts to modify the way marijuana is dealt with are handicapped greatly - see California for a prime example.
As amusing as some may find some of the pro-legalization positions to be, equally hilarious is the slippery slope ‘gateway drug’ rationalization. The argument is exactly the same applied to ice cream - which of course should be banned immediately, because, of course, some people will make the wrong personal choices, and once turned on to ice cream, they’ll soon want to try pudding, or maybe just jump right into the gutter and start straight shooting pixie sticks. Next thing you know, they’re rapidly and uncontrollably becoming obese, taking up two seats on airplanes, coming down with ‘fat people’ related coronary, diabetes, and other assorted medical ailments that will in turn place a great burden upon society in general in the form of inconvenienced airline booking agents, hospitals, and social medicine programs. Despite the fact, of course, that the vast majority of people are perfectly capable of enjoying ice cream in complete moderation, exercising both personal choice and self control in what must be an absolutely bewildering multi-faceted multi-tasking extravapalooza which stumps those absolutely certain of ‘what is best’. Missing completely the point that some like to make that goes something like ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people’ - usually to point out to the anti-gun crowd that it isn’t the instrument that is being questioned, simply the judgement and liberty of the individual to act in a responsible manner. Ergo the circular logic that simply by making something illegal, because some think it should be, then by that one point, any use of the instrument is therefore irresponsible automatically, regardless of consequence, or lack thereof, to the individual making the choice.
With that last bit is particularly hilarious….
Wind Rider on March 23, 2008 at 11:20 AM
We’d have to actually try doing it before we call it a failure. Given that we haven’t, and we don’t seem to be willing to, we can’t call it a failure. You can’t fail at something you never attempt.
Marijuana prohibition has also failed, just as alcohol prohibition did. Learning lessons from experience is not ridiculous. It’s what experience is all about.
Pablo on March 23, 2008 at 11:22 AM
I wouldn’t have a huge problem with it; as long as the same laws that apply to cigarette smokers apply to pot smokers. And, given that pot smoking leads to a higher level of unemployment, that anyone who tests positive for pot (or other drugs) are not eligible for unemployment/welfare, etc. Then do it. Until we are sure people who are pot-heads aren’t sucking at the public teet while killing themselves, let them kill themselves. What do I care?
lorien1973 on March 23, 2008 at 11:23 AM
Decriminalize it at the federal level, but put in place the ability to use federal authority to stop interstate (when one state objects) and international importation.
That makes the most sense.
Spartacus on March 23, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Worse yet is the Jersey Turnpike.
Pablo on March 23, 2008 at 11:26 AM
My anecdotal evidence is proof of nothing. But I personally don’t know any professionals with keen intellects who smoke pot. The guys I do know are fun and easy-going, and laid back and semi-wasted even when they’re not. Just my little corner of the world.
JiangxiDad on March 23, 2008 at 11:26 AM
Relax and smoke one buddy. I don’t think a loser pothead such as myself would make 250K a year trading stocks, do you? Oh, and Sir Richard Branson is a loser pothead too. Stand still so I can smack you with a stack of money.
FLcapitalistthug on March 23, 2008 at 11:28 AM
NJ, you are so wrong I have to embarrass you by asking where you heard that stupidity.
Pot stays in your fat and leaches into your urine for up to a month in detectable levels, IF you are smoking it a lot. Occasional smoker can still get busted 3 weeks after the last toke. But that has nothing to do with the brain or nervous system.
The best argument against Pot was on South Park “It makes you OK with being bored”
Spartacus on March 23, 2008 at 11:29 AM
I don’t drink. I don’t like the feeling of losing control.
I work VERY hard at my job. It’s a normal job, but it’s very physical, very demanding on the mind and body, and I have to deal with people that don’t want to be there, and that’s the hardest part.
I doubt I’ll be able to smoke pot if it’s decriminalized, since I drive 18 wheelers, but I tell you, it’d make my back feel a whole lot better.
Mortis on March 23, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Worsererer yet is any airport.
Mortis on March 23, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Think how much you could make if you weren’t such a flake!
After tax, what the hell you got left, $160K? Try raising a family in NY on that. WAKE UP.
JiangxiDad on March 23, 2008 at 11:32 AM
The consequences of decriminalizing marijuana must be examined. First off, why would only “small amounts” be legal? How much is a small amount? Does this mean wholesalers couldn’t provide it? How will it be distributed? Would local drug stores sell it? Would the only way to legally get it is to grow it yourself? One large plant can produce as much as a pound or more. How do you tell your plant to only grow a “small amount”?
Decriminalization would increase it’s availability. It is as easy to grow as weeds (they don’t call it weed for nothing), an increase in supply would likely drive the cost down to a price matching oregano. There would not be massive amounts of tax revenue collected unless the tax rate was set at an unreasonably high level thus creating a black market for it anyway or large amounts of personal cultivators. A drop in price would make it much more affordable to the masses as well as children. Consumption would likely increase.
Also would there be any laws with regards to the age of users? Would children be able to purchase it and use it legally? We all know how easily those under the age of 21 can obtain alcohol, marijuana as well as other currently illegal drugs. Would this make it even easier for children to get than it already is? Also, where can you smoke it? Only in the home? Would there be “smoking bars”? Would DWI laws still apply to marijuana? What about smoking in public places? All across the country cities have passed cigarette smoking bans based on the belief, true or not, that second hand tobacco smoke is dangerous to the health of nonsmokers. Aside from the question of whether or not it’s dangerous to your health, can second hand marijuana smoke put nonsmokers under the influence of the drug? Some cities have outlawed selling marijuana paraphernalia sighting the proliferation of crime around such businesses. It seems silly to make the drug legal but not the pipe used to smoke it in.
These questions must be weighed against the right to individual liberty, which I do not weigh lightly. Liberty is very important to a free state and should not be sacrificed in the name of expediency. In any event I agree with those who believe that marijuana laws should be set at state or local levels and not by the federal government.
Dollayo on March 23, 2008 at 11:32 AM
The criminalization of marijuana was based on fear propaganda and hysteria. The money spent on arresting and prosecuting otherwise law abiding citizens is ridiculous. Marijuana is no different then alcohol or tobacco. It is a drug that if used in moderation poses no problem to society. Legalize it and prosecute people who misuse and abuse it just like alcohol. It is asinine to keep jailing people for using this mild stimulant. The whole criminalization thing has been a farce since its inception. Perhaps we can better spend this money chasing serious hard drug users.
trs on March 23, 2008 at 11:35 AM
I am 26 and single, and live in South Florida. What do I have to wake up to? Seems like I’m not so flaky.
FLcapitalistthug on March 23, 2008 at 11:36 AM
I think hemp should be decriminalized, for legitimate reasons. The industrial uses are amazing. IT is not within the Federal governments authority to supercede the states in drug enforcement, federalism baby. And it is out of step with the majority of the public. Large scale interdiction is cool, but most people do not care if someone smokes marijuana.
This is a poor reason to make it legal:
It is the same arguement used in support of Sharia law. “We can clear the backlog in family court if only we let the Muslims use Sharia law and or codify it into existing law.”
Republicans that support decriminalization better be careful as to how they argue for it.
The complications will come a new set of legal procedures and definitions. Can you fire someone for using a legal product? Can you fire them for being high? What is the legal definition of high? Can you sell it like cigarettes? I like the fact that each state would be able to enforce their owns laws concerning marijuana.
Theworldisnotenough on March 23, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Oh and use will probably be decriminalized, distribution won’t. Not until the government finds a way to regulate and tax it. They did the same thing with the lottery. Back in the day it was called “running numbers”.
Theworldisnotenough on March 23, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Can we stop the “war on poverty”, too? Talk about a misuse of resources!
SouthernGent on March 23, 2008 at 11:44 AM
I think it should be legal for people to grow pot plants in their own gardens. It should never be illegal to simply grow a plant, regardless of what you do with it afterwards. There are many plants that are legal to grow that are far worse for your health if smoked, eaten etc. Part of the “gateway drug” problem is that if you have to find a dealer to buy pot from, they will likely try and sell you other drugs because pot is not really that profitable. So legalize personal use and allow people to grow it.
thisaintnopicnic on March 23, 2008 at 11:45 AM
I see nothing ridiculous in acknowledging that the difference between murder and marijuana use makes your analogy a woefully flawed one. By all means, if you think these two acts are analogous for policy-making purposes, then please enlighten us.
NorthernCross on March 23, 2008 at 11:47 AM
I am for legalization, but only if it is controlled and regulated like Booze. The whole reason it was made illegal was a movie called Reefer Madness and you can Google and view this online.
JeffinSac on March 23, 2008 at 11:48 AM
People, let’s get real for a moment. We live in a free society, and as such we need a compelling reason o criminalize something rather than a compelling reason not to do so. What is the compelling reason for criminalizing pot?
NorthernCross on March 23, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Great. I look forward to driving in heavy traffic where 10-25% of the drivers are stoned instead of .05%. What harmless fun.
peacenprosperity on March 23, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Taxpayer burden - in the form of benefits when they lose their jobs and have to go on welfare. Remove that; and puff away losers.
lorien1973 on March 23, 2008 at 11:52 AM
As a former burnout and drunk (14 years sober), I have to agree with everyone here that has stated that alcohol is far more damaging. I don’t think it would be good for us to make pot more available, though.
I think the risks with pot use are more passive and accumulative compared to the consequences of alcohol abuse, which in my experience were more acute and immediate.
The reason I think we are better off with fewer pot smokers is because it does affect the mind, the memory, and also one’s motivation. Free adults should be able to take those risks, the same way they consider the risks associated with alcohol and tobacco.
But making pot more available to everyone will make it easier for adolescents to use it. And I’m sorry, it’s very enjoyable, I would hate to deny any adult that pleasure - but it’s the last thing a teenager needs to be dealing with in the critical years when they are preparing for adulthood. Sure, it would be illegal for anyone under 18, but if it was legalized you know more kids will smoke pot than are currently.
And I’m not certain that Ann Coulter smokes pot, although she does love the Dead. I’m pretty certain that she’s against legalizaation, though.
Dork B. on March 23, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Most if not all jurisdictions in this country already have laws that prohibit driving while intoxicated without actually making the most common reason for such intoxication (i.e. alcohol consumption) illegal. This is not a good policy argument for an outright ban on pot smoking.
NorthernCross on March 23, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Absolutely. All ‘natural’ derivatives should be as legal as any herbal tea. It is patently absurd to classify a plant as ‘illegal’. It is not possible for a part of the natural order to be inherently criminal. Humans commit crimes. Human actions can be classified as criminal. Plants, animals, rocks - cannot be so classified.
Manufactured (pharma) drugs, like MDMA, LSD et al should fall under the governance of the FDA.
Someone attempted the ludicrous analogy to murder. Wrong logical framework - but I suspect they knew that, and were attempting the classic strawman. The principle at stake here is not that ‘law enforcement is imperfect so dump the law’, as was so fallaciously asserted. The principle here is that the law is wrong. It is unjust to prosecute free individuals for partaking of a natural substance - as stupid as that decision may well be.
Just as firearms do not cause crime, neither do drugs. It is the prohibitionist environment that incubates criminal activity that need not be. It’s a weed for chrissakes - if you want to smoke it, it is trivial to grow in yuor backyard, attic or balcony. Likewise with many other sources of drugs.
What is really at play here is social engineering, a nanny-state clampdown on liberty - championed by so many that would otherwise proclaim their love of same.
LimeyGeek on March 23, 2008 at 11:59 AM
To expound those points, there are people with jobs that I don’t think anyone wants using mind altering drugs with regularity. Locomotive and subway drivers, airline pilots, police, politicians, medical care providers just to name a few.
Are there people who wouldn’t be allowed even if it was made legal because of their profession? If it’s no big deal, then you wouldn’t have a problem with your pilot taking a between flights toke because he has a stressful job?
Hog Wild on March 23, 2008 at 12:00 PM
You realize that this is just as good an argument for a ban on alcohol consumption. But as a country, we’ve already decided that this isn’t a good enough reason to criminalize alcohol abuse. So why the distinction for marijuana use?
In any event, there are a lot of reasons why people lose their jobs. For example, some people are just lazy bums. Should we now criminalize laziness?
NorthernCross on March 23, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Reckless impairment that endangers others is always a crime, just like alcohol.
LimeyGeek on March 23, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Quoted for truth.
NorthernCross on March 23, 2008 at 12:04 PM
And the fact that we’ve saddled ourselves with this ridiculous socialism called ‘welfare’ is the pot-smokers problem, how?
End welfare.
LimeyGeek on March 23, 2008 at 12:05 PM
I’m suprised that dope wasn’t made legal years ago. If it were legal, the federal and state governments could tax it and eliminate their budget defecits. The feds could also grow and regulate it and put some of those mexican smugglers out of business.
Paul the American on March 23, 2008 at 12:07 PM
WTF, I have posted to this board three times and none have gone through.
Ciannaky on March 23, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Lets try again,
I live in chronic (no pun intended) and excruciating pain for many years as a result of a broken back. I have used Ibuprofen to the point of developing bleeding ulcers, as an alternative I was prescribed Vioxx which turned out to be literally killing people.
I found that one toke of a pipe keeps me pain free for nearly a full hour and doesn’t cloud my ability to function any more than the other “legal” pills.
As others have pointed out, why should I be a slave to Big Pharma when I can simply plant a seed, care for my plant, dry it, cure it and smoke it to alleviate my pain?
If Law enforcement catches me driving around stoned then I should be punished like any other DUI’er but sitting in my living room relieving my symptoms? What kind of animal would keep me living in pain? And where do my posts keep disappearing to?
Ciannaky on March 23, 2008 at 12:10 PM
What’s he been smoking?
TroubledMonkey on March 23, 2008 at 12:12 PM
I agree. Tack alcohol onto that too. If you lose your job cuz you are drunk, no unemployment or welfare benefits either. I overlooked that. Thanks!
Lazy people are probably not at jobs that have large paydays anyways. They are at mcdonalds and would probably just move to another mcjob later afterwards.
It’s not their fault; but if we live in the system, take away the benefit of being a drugged out loser.
lorien1973 on March 23, 2008 at 12:12 PM
We were promised breasts.
BL@KBIRD on March 23, 2008 at 12:15 PM
I would like to point out that few people are jailed for using marijuana. The savings to law enforcement would probably be small considering they would no longer be collecting fines, as well as the cash, cars, boats and other property that they seize under current drug laws. I don’t expect the drug police would go away, they would still be needed for other illegal drugs, they would just take marijuana off their list. I haven’t done a cost/benefit analysis but the savings on law enforcement would certainly be mitigated.
Dollayo on March 23, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Her in Texas a joint can get you 2 yrs state jail time.The war on drugs is the biggest farce ever hoisted on the American public.In 40 yrs the amount of people consuming drugs has remained constant.The only thing that has grown is are prison system.The United States now has more people under lock and key than any other country in the world,Including China And Russia.At any given time 1 in 10 people are involved in the Justice system of this country.Either incarcerated,on parole,probation,or awaiting court dates.The biggest differece between opt and alcohol is the more you drink the drunker you get,with pot you can only get so high,If you smoke 1 joint its not gonna get you any higher smoking a pound of it!Your body will only process so much and reject the rest.
E.Tex on March 23, 2008 at 12:16 PM
It’s nice to see the anti-pot hysteria kept to a minimum on this thread. I think most everyone who takes the time to look into why marijuana was made illegal in the first place, combined with a studied look at alcohol prohibition and its negative social effects, will come to the conclusion that decriminalizing marijuana is the most sane thing our government can do. Thanks Wind Rider and others.
-
deesine on March 23, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Your story is not unusual, sadly.
If I were in your shoes, I would have absolutely no compunction in breaking the law. Law be damned to hell. You are not a caged animal.
LimeyGeek on March 23, 2008 at 12:22 PM
As a single offense, you are correct. Marijuana offenses are mostly seen when breaking probation/parole. In other words, someone who has spent time for a non-drug offense is sent back to prison for the marijuana offense. Happens all the time.
-
deesine on March 23, 2008 at 12:23 PM
You just imagined it, you stoner!!
Just kidding.
Your arguement is the strongest one on this topic. And I work in Big Pharma creating these drugs.
omnipotent on March 23, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Believe me I don’t have any problem with breaking the law. Oh and I hope the four other versions of that post don’t finally show up, if they do I apologise in advance. And no I’m not stoned!!! Can’t find any. LOL.
Ciannaky on March 23, 2008 at 12:24 PM
I spent 2 WEEKS on a US Navy Destroyer off the California coast, chasing ONE suspected Pot runner… they are called LEO ops, carried Coast Guard, and was the biggest waste of my time in my entire life.
I saw the “Intelligence” we acted on… and of course, we found nothing…
And the tip was about POT, not something harder…
Anyone know how much it takes to Run a Spruance Class Destroyer for TWO WEEKS!
Romeo13 on March 23, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Using - perhaps not so much, although I also concur with deesine.
Possession - now that’s another story entirely.
LimeyGeek on March 23, 2008 at 12:26 PM
LOL, I knew someone would say that.
Ciannaky on March 23, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 »